Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Wednesday, October 06, 2010

Rich Hughes- The Universe is 100% Efficient

-
Rich Hughes has provided an equation for determining the efficiency of the universe based on the premise that it was designed for scientific discovery:

[number of stars that teach us something new] / [total number of stars]

He then challenges me to:
Do the math, Joe. If you can.

Sure thing Rich-

[number of stars that teach us something new]- Every star has the potential of teaching us something new, so we would have:

[all of the stars]/ [total number of stars] = 1.00 = 100%

Thanks Rich...

50 Comments:

  • At 1:42 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    So every star has taught us something new. Really?

     
  • At 1:45 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Every star has the potential of teaching us something new,

    Rich:
    So every star has taught us something new

    Every star has the potential of teaching us something new, really.

    And even if most stars had EXACT duplicates then we would have discovered and learned that.

     
  • At 1:51 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    but potential is catual, is it.

    Every die roll is potentially a 6, but they all aren't in reality, are they?

    Most stars have many exact duplicates with reagrd to what they can teach us about the universe.

    Painted yourself into a corner again, Joe? This is up there with 'The CSI of Cake'.

     
  • At 1:56 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    Most stars have many exact duplicates with reagrd to what they can teach us about the universe.

    Nice assertion.

    Painted yourself into a corner again, Joe?

    Not even close.

    If we found that all stars were exact duplicates that would teach us something new about the universe.

    If all but one were exact duplicates that would teach us something new about the universe.

    IOW Rich you think your nonsense is meaningful.

     
  • At 2:01 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    So with your paintbrush in hand we're now at the point that any data, regardless of whether it meaninfully enhances our understanding of cosmology counts in your summation.

    With this in mind, please tell us what a universe that *wasn't* designed for discovery would look like.

    In your childish world anything we can count is designed for discovery.

     
  • At 2:11 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    So with your paintbrush in hand we're now at the point that any data, regardless of whether it meaninfully enhances our understanding of cosmology counts in your summation.

    So when your "refutation" is shown to be nonsense you just make up more shit to throw around.

    You have no idea how science operates, do you?

    You have no idea that information about newly discovered stars, even if they are the same as most other stars, adds to the knowledge data base of scientists.

    Rich:
    With this in mind,

    With what in mind? The fact that you are a clueless dolt?

    I keep that ion mind all the time- even though I try to give you the benefit of the doubt.

    please tell us what a universe that *wasn't* designed for discovery would look like.

    That is in the book you didn't read but feel fit to criticize.

    You are a smaller person than I thought...

     
  • At 2:20 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "You have no idea that information about newly discovered stars, even if they are the same as most other stars, adds to the knowledge data base of scientists." - So this per your original conjecture means every conceivable universe is fine tuned for discovery.

    What would the absence of this design attribute look like, Joe? Quit stalling.

     
  • At 2:36 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    So this per your original conjecture means every conceivable universe is fine tuned for discovery.

    Nope, just this universe.

    Can't say anything about any other verses we have never observed.

    What would the absence of this design attribute look like, Joe?

    How could we falsify the premise that our universe was not designed for scientific discovery?

    Are you admitting that you didn't read the book?

    from page 314
    “The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment that, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment.. The opposite of this would have the same effect- finding an extremely habitable and inhabited place that was a lousy platform for observation.”

    That is just part of their response...

     
  • At 2:50 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment that, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment.."

    Ironically this can't happen as the universe isn't designed to allow us to easily view such distant places in the required detail.

     
  • At 2:57 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    Ironically this can't happen as the universe isn't designed to allow us to easily view such distant places in the required detail.

    Of course it can happen.

    It just hasn't happened yet.

    And we don't need an ease of viewing. All we need is to figure out a way to get a better view and then make it so.

     
  • At 3:02 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    I thought you said the universe was designed for discovery? And yet it doesn't have ease of viewing. Another contradiction.

     
  • At 3:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    I thought you said the universe was designed for discovery?

    That is what the evidence says.

    Had you read the book you would have read all about it.

    Rich:
    And yet it doesn't have ease of viewing.

    Not pertaining to every single object it contains.

    However obviously we have made many thousands of scientific discoveries, and there are more to come.

    And I am sure that with each new discovery you will be off in your little padded room mumbling "nope, nothing new here."


    LoL!

     
  • At 3:21 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Number of discoveries vs size and composition of universe is tiny. Its fairly homogeneous. So, not efficient at all.

     
  • At 3:28 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    Number of discoveries vs size and composition of universe is tiny.

    Umm we are just getting started.

    As I said we have more to discover.

    Rich:
    Its fairly homogeneous.

    What does that mean?

    Will we find an even distribution of intelligent lfe-forms?

    Rich:
    So, not efficient at all.

    So sez Rich from his little padded room.

     
  • At 3:43 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Goalposts moving from Cosmology to Biology, Joe?

     
  • At 3:54 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    Goalposts moving from Cosmology to Biology, Joe?

    Is biology part of this universe?

    I told you that in a universe designed for discovery that it would things to do the discovering and things to be discovered.

    But anyways what does this have to do with anything?

    You said the universe is "fairly homogeneous".

    What did you mean by that?

    Instead of clarifying your bald claim you then try to distract from a lack of explanation by going off on some unrelated tangent.

    If you mean the universe has an even distribution of matter, then that discovery did teach us something about the universe.

     
  • At 4:14 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homogeneity_and_heterogeneity

     
  • At 5:43 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich,

    I asked for you to explain what you meant.

    I know what homogeneity means.

    Wikipedia does not address it in the context you were using it.

    You said the universe is "fairly homogeneous".

    What did you mean by that?

    Are you saying it is uniform in composition or character?

    Can you supply a reference and also a reference that says homogeneity equals inefficiency.

     
  • At 9:49 PM, Blogger blipey said…

    You could probably keep up with the discussion faster if you didn't have to screen all the posts....

     
  • At 9:41 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    What discussion?

    All you are doing is spewing your ignorance...

     
  • At 1:33 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    I mean that there is very little little. We find duplicates of everything that we can inspect (and we can't inspect that much contra to your fine tuned for discovery claim). Objects in the universe can be described and defined using a very small dictionary.

     
  • At 3:05 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    I mean that there is very little little.

    Very little substance to what you say.

    Rich:
    We find duplicates of everything that we can inspect

    So you say however the evidence for that is lacking.

    We have yet to find a duplicate Earth.

    Rich:
    Objects in the universe can be described and defined using a very small dictionary.

    Even if true that doesn't mean that the universe wasn't designed for discovery.

     
  • At 3:12 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "We have yet to find a duplicate Earth."

    perhaps that's beacuse we're not in a good spot for measure ment. If we we closer to another earth type planet, perhaps in a system that had two, it woudl be easier.

    So, we're not set for discovery. Ooops.

     
  • At 3:13 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Even if true that doesn't mean that the universe wasn't designed for discovery."

    Well, it's badly designed then, Joe. You're the only one who needs things repeating a billion times.

     
  • At 3:17 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "We have yet to find a duplicate Earth."

    Rich:
    perhaps that's beacuse we're not in a good spot for measure ment.

    Wait- you just said we have found duplicates!

    Yet obviously we haven't.

    And if we do find a duplicate earth- guess what?

    That will be NEW KNOWLEDGE!

    You lose again.

     
  • At 3:19 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Even if true that doesn't mean that the universe wasn't designed for discovery."

    Rich:
    Well, it's badly designed then, Joe.

    Coming from you that is meaningless driatribe.

    You're the only one who needs things repeating a billion times.

    Strange that you can't find one scientist who agrees with you.

     
  • At 3:23 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    perhaps that's beacuse we're not in a good spot for measure ment.

    All evidence to the contrary of course.

    Rich ignoring your teeth will make them go away.

    Ignoring the data will not make it go away.

     
  • At 3:25 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich sez there is very little yet I know he couldn't get any real scientists to agree with him.

    Why are we spending billions on a new space-based telescope?

    Because there is much more to observe and learn.

     
  • At 3:27 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Joe, by your 'reasoning', finding anything is new knowledge (as you have no qualitative concerns whatsoever - there are actually very few types of star, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_classification )so any conceivable universe that would facilitate counting in designed for discovery by your own idiotic thinking.

    It turns out our closet neighbour is better for observation:

    http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/061205_moon_clash.html

    "Placing large telescopes on the lunar surface could be fruitful since the Moon lacks clouds and any blurring atmosphere. While free space offers these attributes, the Moon also provides a permanent platform-a solid anchor-and its far side is free of radio noise. "

    but less suited for habitation. Idiocy FALSIFIED. Go back to watching dragonflies play.

     
  • At 3:34 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    Joe, by your 'reasoning', finding anything is new knowledge (as you have no qualitative concerns whatsoever - there are actually very few types of star, for example:

    Talk to any scientist- I bet he/ she will agree with me.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_classification

    Was that supposed to mean something?

    Rich:
    so any conceivable universe that would facilitate counting in designed for discovery by your own idiotic thinking.

    Only an imbecilic faggot would say something like that.

    Again Rich you have to read the book in order to understand it and try to refute it.

    Continuing to act like an asshole just exposes your desperation.

    It turns out our closet neighbour is better for observation:

    http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/061205_moon_clash.html

    "Placing large telescopes on the lunar surface could be fruitful since the Moon lacks clouds and any blurring atmosphere. While free space offers these attributes, the Moon also provides a permanent platform-a solid anchor-and its far side is free of radio noise. "

    but less suited for habitation.


    It isn't a better platform for making ALL scientific discoveries. Maybe one or two.

    IOW once again you think that your ignorance refutes the evidence.

    You are a pathetically small person...

     
  • At 3:39 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Joe, its was easy to find a place better for observation but less well suited for habitation.

    Sorry - you lose, again.

    What % of the universe can we meaningfully measure in this universe that is fine tuned for discovery?

    The reason you can't get this crap into classes is theachers aren't as dumb as you. But keep trying! Will you be at the next court case?

    Also - "imbecilic faggot", "asshole" etc just highlights you've lost your rag ang and lost the debate. Funny and sad, equally.

     
  • At 3:45 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    http://www.ps.uci.edu/~kuehn/personal/asa2003.ppt#256,1,A Critique of the Privileged Planet Hypothesis

     
  • At 4:15 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    Joe, its was easy to find a place better for observation but less well suited for habitation.

    Umm it isn't better suited for ALL observations, Rich.

    Maybe only a few.

    Again had you read the book you wouldn't be spewing this ignorance.

    Rich:
    What % of the universe can we meaningfully measure in this universe that is fine tuned for discovery?

    All of it.

    Rich:
    The reason you can't get this crap into classes is theachers aren't as dumb as you.

    I'm not trying to get it into classes.

    You lose again...

     
  • At 4:18 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich,

    You posted that link before- and just like you he doesn't appear to understand the concept.

     
  • At 4:40 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "All of it"

    WRONG.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

     
  • At 4:59 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    What % of the universe can we meaningfully measure in this universe that is fine tuned for discovery?

    All of it.

    Rich:
    WRONG.

    What is wrong about it?

    Or are you reduced to grunting and flinging shit?

     
  • At 5:02 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "The Privileged Planet-

    How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery"

    Ya see Rich discovery is much more than the ability to observe somne stars more clearly.

    That is why when you post:

    Joe, its was easy to find a place better for observation but less well suited for habitation.

    You are proving that you are ignorant of the book you seek to refute.

    And when that is exposed to grasp for anything else that you think will help.

     
  • At 5:08 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Scientific discovery is much more than just looking for/ at the stars.

    IOW nice of you to expose your ignorance of science also...

     
  • At 5:15 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    If your going to moan about my comments at least have the decency to publish them. There a reason the universe <> the observable universe.

    Sorry.

     
  • At 5:24 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    If your going to moan about my comments at least have the decency to publish them.

    I have published all of them.

    Rich:
    There a reason the universe <> the observable universe.

    What?

     
  • At 5:26 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Why do we have 2 phrases, "the universe" and "the observable universe"? Do you know?

     
  • At 5:52 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    Why do we have 2 phrases, "the universe" and "the observable universe"?

    Because there are some parts we haven't got to YET.

    And that just supports what I have been saying.

    We have made millions of discoveries and we ain't done yet.

    As I said you are totally clueless about science.

     
  • At 5:54 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    "Because there are some parts we haven't got to YET."

    That's wrong. Try again.

     
  • At 6:02 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "Because there are some parts we haven't got to YET."

    Rich:
    That's wrong.

    What's wrong about it?

    I am sick of your bald assertions- make your point- you have failed miserably so far...

    Why do we have 2 phrases, "the universe" and "the observable universe"? Do you know?

    Enlighten us or admit you are but a clueless child playing childish games.

     
  • At 6:39 PM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    Let's see if you can get there by yourself. This pretty much gives the game away:

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/universe/howbig.html

     
  • At 6:41 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    Let's see if you can get there by yourself.

    I'm not playing your games Richie.

    If you have a point- make it.

    If you can't then fuck off.

     
  • At 6:43 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Rich:
    This pretty much gives the game away:

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/universe/howbig.html


    What- that you are so stupid taht you can't use html tags?

    Yup that gives the game away.

     
  • At 9:41 AM, Blogger Rich Hughes said…

    I think I'll let you flounder in your ignorance Joe, it's much funnier.

     
  • At 9:59 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    IOW you don't have a point.

    That's what I thought.

    So in one hand we have evidence that the universe is designed for scientific discovery and in the other we have Rich with bald assertions and a proven lack of undersatnding, ie ignorance, of the concept being discussed.

    Yup that is very funny Rich.

    Good job.

     
  • At 10:01 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And in case you are too stupid to get it-


    It is obvious that you are the one floundering in your own ignorance Rich.

    And it is entertaining watching you do so.

    Thank you.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home