fayfreethinkers.com

Joeknows wrote:There is an entire world of information that proves you wrong.

Then maybe you should have provided, you know, any of it in your now over three dozen posts. I guess you forgot.

Let me show you why you are an idiot Mr Douggy. Because calling you an idiot means absolutely nothing. Showing how derive this knowledge is everything. So please don't just take me at my word for it. I really want everyone to have a clear understanding of how you are missing necessary tools with which to call yourself a "teacher."

Joeknows wrote:
And the only way to judge this effectively is by use of pure terminology...


Now he writes:
Joeknows wrote:
"Pure terminology" isn't the only way to prove or know this information...They aren't "judged on terminology"


This is just a parade of ad hoc nonsense. It's not funny anymore, and that was the only reason to read it.

Previously, Joeknows at least had a few gems that were so stupid it was funny, like:

You edited down my post until it sounded like I was contradicting myself. A very sly tactic from someone that only cares about winning the argument, because his actual philosophical understanding is just nonexistent. I am still saying BOTH of what I said, because they are TWO statements, and NOT just one.

This isn't just your personal deficiency, it is an English deficiency. If you ever look at the Spanish language, you will see that there are TWO words for "is." English speaking people get easily confused about this difference in language, for one "is" ("esta") describes a conditional state that something is in. And the other "is" describes what something will always be at heart, regardless of any situation.

Since we don't have an easy way to differentiate in our English language between what something is fundamentally, and what something is conditionally; we don't specify or don't even bother to intend which of these we mean most times. And this makes discussing something incredibly difficult when I am talking about what somethings fundamental properties, and you are disagreeing about its conditional usage.

So can you understand that there even IS a difference between what something is fundamentally, and how it is being used conditionally?

Taking this knowledge about the difference between an object and an action, we can see that as an "object" it doesn't need to be verified or proven for it to continue to exist in the way that it always has. But taking this knowledge and using it to know more about its condition, then the ONLY way for our human brains to recognize it, is by developing terminology with which to discuss it. And this is because developing "grammar" is the first step towards building knowledge about anything. You don't have to develop your terminology for it to be true, you can remain ignorant of it. In fact, you probably will.

The information isn't judged by terminology, but our learning of it is. And your assumption that I was talking about about the same thing is even more evidence of your lack of devotion to consider this for more than a second of your time. In order to prove yourself right, you are willing to look at information that I am not even talking about. You are unwilling to ask for clarification on any part. And, yes, I have talked about SO much of it, that there are many parts to bring clarification to. So stop being a coward and just "dipping your toes in" the information. Because "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." If you aren't willing to know all of it, then you really just don't know ANY of it.

This is just a parade of ad hoc nonsense. It's not funny anymore, and that was the only reason to read it.

I never look up information in order to link it, to "prove" that something is that way. I derive all my knowledge from the basics that I have built up from. But I don't have the terminology that you have developed. So in order to discuss these concepts I occasionally have to look up some method or system in order to know how you are intending it. (I know you won't consider or look up anything that I discuss, and that's why I feel that I am smarter than you. Simple willingness to look at both sides, instead of just the side I'm invested in.)

The fullest definition of "ad hoc" I could find came from wikipedia: "Ad hoc is a Latin phrase meaning "for this". It generally signifies a solution designed for a specific problem or task, non-generalizable, and not intended to be able to be adapted to other purposes"

Now THIS is philosophy. Being able to look at the big AND small picture, and determining whether it fits all levels of results obtained. But didn't you just use this method specifically to try to disprove me? You took two small pieces, separated them from anything relevant, laid them next to each other, and declared that they contradicted. From that perspective they DO contradict. But if you can only look at evidence from SUCH a narrow perspective, how do you honestly expect to make it applicable to the greater picture? Aren't YOU the one who is making "ad hoc" statements? I love when you prove my own point for me with your information. It really makes it much easier, thank you.

But he's just tedious now. Not worth the time.

Really douggy, because being "tedious" sounds like I'm trying to be precise. I'm trying to clarify. I'm trying to only talk about something that you can understand, despite that being a very tall order.

Why? You did not address any specifics. Why is it invalid? You don't give any specifics.

I'm getting "tedious" so that I CAN address specifics. But nearly all of your posts attempt to attack the validity of my posts, to assume that I have learned wrong somewhere. But I haven't learned wrong, I have the exact same foundation that most educated people get. I have just chosen to examine the methodology further, so that I can understand where it was derived from. I have talked to brilliant minds, and they don't spend time squabbling like you all. My brother-in-law is a chemist who also went to medical school. He is the brainiest person I have ever met, and he would instantly put you back into your own place of "limited understanding of science." He agrees with me on ALL the basics. He just hasn't developed a right-brain cognitive approach towards assembling all the larger systems into a coherent picture.

So when you try to insinuate that "[joeknows has no understanding of the basics of science]" Well then, you are just completely wrong to make this assumption. In fact, I am talking about it on such a complete way, that it appears to you like I am getting the basics wrong. But this isn't where I'm lacking. This is where YOU are unwilling to try imagining your own systems further. I can't say that "I am right" and expect you to believe it. But if you only assume that I am wrong, we just won't get anywhere together. And then I will have to ignore you and respond to other members who actually have a true willingness to know for themselves, and not just be handed down what to believe in.

Joeknows wrote:
Well look at this simple example to show how this could be.

1: A person only ever uses the scientific method on butterflies (because he likes them best!) This person may be the most methodical researcher, with the most keen and insightful eye for detail. And this person could spend the entirety of their lives gaining information about butterflies. But being the world's greatest export on butterflies doesn't mean they have put ANY effort towards knowing other topics of information. Sure, there are many parallels of similarities that can be drawn from butterflies and used on spiders or beetles, but as soon as you move out of your field of specialty, the "success rate" of your information as it applies to the REST of reality, is going to drop from about 90% usefulness to around 1-10% depending on the individual.


So? Show where I'm wrong. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE THAT I AM MISTAKEN? Where is your evidence that you are correct?

You provide NONE.

Why won't you take my example as evidence? Everything I discuss in it are things that could really happen in reality. Or do you dispute that? Because if you don't dispute that these things could happen, then you just ignored ANOTHER piece of evidence. You were probably too busy yelling about it to notice that it was there all along...

No, YOU are being deceitful. We've asked you for evidence for MONTHS. You provided NOTHING BUT WILD, UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS.

this claim is nothing but a wild unsupported claim. But I appreciate how upset you are over it. Maybe that means you will get upset enough to actually consider it someday. I can only wait and hope.

Remember that? So you won't even begin to discuss astrology, which is what you came here to defend, until we agree to accept all your statements as true. And you pretend to be using the scientific method?

You think I am here to support astrology/astrotheology? Absolutely not. I am only here to support relevant and valid information. Once this information is established, IT can defend astrology, or whatever else. This is just another assumption at my purpose. But I'm not even trying to hide my purpose. I'm trying to tell you what it is, but you are so invested that you are unwilling to hear me. So why don't you start listening...instead of assuming it?

You keep asking for "NEW EVIDENCE, but guess what? There IS NO NEW EVIDENCE. "There is nothing new under the sun," is an appropriate quote to describe how this works. I don't need to show you evidence, because all the evidence has ALREADY BEEN UNCOVERED. All we have to do, is compile it in a more orderly fashion.

Now you constantly accuse me of having no evidence, so let me show you how to use systems, instead of a single bald piece of evidence to prove something:

When was the last time we got evidence of something new? Not just a news article hyping the probability of far reaching studies, but actual conclusive evidence that changed how science works? It obviously hasn't happened much, if at all. Because even if a group discovers something they didn't know, that piece of information didn't create a new universe that works in a new way. It was just a process of our understanding coming into a better alignment with reality. We aren't creating new knowledge, we are just uncovering old knowledge that has always been there.

Do you doubt that this process proves itself? Well look at what would happen if it weren't this way. If the laws of the universe were changing, then any information we learned would become invalid as the universe became something else. If this were the case, then no information would ever remain valid. This subjective relativism that Douggy has tried to uphold, is backed up by the idea of a "ever-changing" or an "unknowable" universe. But if we can't know it, or it is changing too fast, then that would invalidate our investment in learning or even creating a "united" freethinker group to discuss it with.

But I assume that you won't understand how the effects of this can be proven, so keep saying "[he has provided no evidence!]," as if there even WERE new evidence to be found! And to not be able to work with these ideas outside of "evidence," as a philosophy teacher, you fail miserably at philosophy. And I will enjoy laughing at your ignorance each time you ask for something whose existence goes against all the laws of reality.

I started writing my replies, and I recognized that this was you Savvy. Just from your questsions and approach towards looking at the information instead of attacking me baselessly. Again, I sincerely appreciate that you have more courage, or less fear, to bring to any discussion. Okay, let's get our thinking cap on!

Joeknows wrote:
The fact that every life form has an incredibly similar structure, is NOT proof that one of them became the other or vice versa.
Actually, it's pretty good evidence that there was a single life form from which all earthly life arose.

You want some unifying factor that contributed to the evolution of life as we know it. But the common factor in environment, the common factor of basing life around the carbon atom, the common factor of being bound by gravity, the common factor of needing oxygen to for respiration, etc... are all common conditions that could have shaped a species to be "similar" in nature to all others. If there was more proof of this from other areas, then I would admit that this strengthens your argument. But so far, it seems like there are more common factors that could as easily be responsible.

Joeknows wrote:
It is more likely the fact that it is simply the BEST way for life to manifest
No, that's blatantly wrong. That's like saying that because we have eyes like our eyes, our eyes must be the best way to get visual information about the world around us. That's simply not true.

That's NOT what it is saying. It is saying what I just mentioned, that the environment shaped our development. I'm not saying that because we have eyes, eyes our the best way to gather visual information. Cmon Savvy, you're not THAT dumb. I AMsaying that occularization is the only way to gain visual information, because of how it works. Or very possibly because "light" is the determining factor for existence. And that deciphering it into information, or conscious categorization, is the basest requirement to accomplish anything else! Before you try to say that a bat doesn't need to decipher light to survive, light is still the fundamental requirement for energy on this earth. The bat still depends on processing this energy, but can evaluate it the same way by hearing and a sort of radar method. But if the sun stopped producing energy, it doesn't matter whether a bat could see or not, it would still die. I would even argue that this "echo location" doesn't provide the same information that visualization does, because it is a more "geometrical" way of "viewing" the world. Even though they describe the same thing, they don't give the same information about it. And would be unable to process more complex forms of it, like color subtle color changes.

Cichlids. Next?

This is something I don't know much about, so I will research it some. But it still doesn't change the functionality of the over-arching way that I describe this system. I admit when I'm wrong, unlike well, practically every member of this group? LOL!

You're making up a new form of energy that doesn't follow the rules of energy.

I'm not sure what you are even talking about. You cut my quotes so short that I don't even know what it was meant to describe. So, congratulations on breaking information down, way past the point of getting something relevant from it.

This isn't a "new" form of energy. This is the same energy that you know, and have been working with all your life. When I said that you "probably" aren't talking about the same type of energy as me, I meant that you didn't understand its full expression, and how that relates to the energy of every single situation. When I start trying to describe a very specific use of energy across various systems, you puff up like a fish and sat, "[you can't compare across systems like that]," just because you can't conceive of how energy or the laws of the universe operate.

Joeknows wrote:
Energy is how knowledge connects with reality
That's a bare assertion thrown in with a bunch of mumbo-jumbo. No, energy is not how knowledge connects with reality. Energy is a state function that represents the amount of matter present and its ability to do work or create heat based on its current form. It has nothing to do with "knowledge."

As I am quickly working to reply to your attacks of my posts, I might leave out a word like "shows." I assumed you could understand what I meant, but I will clarify: Energy SHOWS how information connects with reality. I am talking about "WORK" here. I am not talking about the potential for something to react or not react, or this potential energy that you described. I am talking about what is "pushing" the reaction. If there is nothing "pushing" the reaction, then there will be no reaction, and it will remain "potential energy."

I appreciate your scientific knowledge, but as I stated above, working too hard at one thing, will cause you to have less information about other things you could have been learning about. I would love to debate the chemistry, physics, and math about it, but we can use just simple logic to understand this without getting needlessly complex.

The energy required for an animal to live is made from the food it eats, the energy required to drive a car comes from the gasoline, the energy required to have a campfire is the logs.

Each of these are a "function" that we can specifically define: an animal, a car, a campfire.

For each of these functions, they will not exist, or will stop existing if it doesn't get the energy required to "function."

THIS is how I am describing "energy." The fuel required to function. This "fuel" is different for every system. And we can identify this "fueling" energy in every situation, and draw more general conclusions about how it operates, than just the ones that science offers us. I am talking about this function philosophically, mathematically, and physically. We can get into chemical examples, AND look at your side of the information to help us be sure that our general ideas conform to ALL real expressions available to us.

I did that. I took your cockamamie idea of "super-special Joestrology brand energy" and applied energy rules to it. I went up the ladder. And you cried foul. You said that I can't apply the bigger rules to your specific example. Now you want to apply the bigger rules to your specific example. Well I already did that, and it pissed you off.
You truly have no clue what's going on, even in this conversation. No wonder you don't know what's going on in the world.

I honestly appreciate the sincerity of your effort, if your effort was sincere. Just because you tried to apply the rules of a smaller system to a larger one, doesn't mean that you were appropriately forming an integral understanding of the information. It has to work BOTH ways. The small has to verify the large. And the large has to verify the small.

It is easier to start with large generalities, and then test them in smaller systems for validity. Very much like your scientific method suggests. But how specifically did I tell you that you couldn't apply one set of rules about a specific "whole system" towards relevant information from ANY system. But if you look at it as less than a whole system, then the information it contains no longer holds validity in function. If you take information from examining a dead rat, you might recognize that its heart is still. If you didn't recognize that you had to destroy the functionality of the system to get this information, then you would assume from this that rat hearts are always still, and may not even have any function at all. This is what I was describing by "cutting with science" and the number "10. Symbolically, 10 is 1 exponential degree above "1" which is describing "all things individually," and is 1 exponential degree below "100," which represents "all things functioning as a part of the whole," or just 100%. This is the only way that approaches BOTH means of determining information, in a balanced way that will yield a more effective result.

This relates to morality. I sometimes say that, "there is no such thing as an 'evil genius.'" In fact it is impossible, and even contradictory. To "be" a genius, one would have to be both, fully in control of their consciousness, and fully aware of their environment. And if this were the case, they would understand how immoral behavior literally blocks us from learning new information. Don't take my word for it, but I will eventually show how this "morality" is only a refining of the process with which we gather information. And that it is impossible to obtain a full picture of the information while still trying to hold onto immoral behavior that divides our conscious into something more fuzzy and blurry with which to examine from. I will get much more into this later, as for now, just hold it open for consideration, if you can.

Joeknows wrote:
If you try to mathematically or even just logically represent the full visible color spectrum in the FEWEST possible differentiations, you will get 7.
No, you don't. It's entirely arbitrary. We often refer to that range as the "visible spectrum." That's ONE "differentiation," not seven.
Here's the real irony: Newton decided that there ought to be seven colors because he felt that seven had some sort of natural meaning. We now kind of laugh at the idea of indigo. In modern science that involves colors, such as colorimetry and spectrometry, we don't refer to indigo. Color wheels don't have indigo; there's no place for it. We have three types of cones in our eyes that each discern two colors for a total of six colors, not seven, yet we see the color that we call "indigo" just fine. You howl and whine and stamp your feet that we're blinded by historical science, but here's an example of the exact opposite: Science has gotten past Newton's baseless assertion and has settled on six colors -- colors which are entirely qualitative based on our eyes, not qualitative based on the physical world -- but you insist on keeping the old, defunct, baseless version.
You are a laughingstock, Joe.

At least you recognize my argument, that you are blinded by "historical science." I would call it "hierarchical science," because an institution can "push" information outside the constraints of our human life or death. In other words, I'm validating your "terminology" as mostly accurate to what I am saying. And that's a BIG compliment, trust me.

I agree completely that simplest way to describe it, is "one" color, or simply the reflection of color itself. But it IS a natural system, which contains the frequency of every single expression of color in reality. Describing it as "1" thing like you said, would only be appropriate if we are comparing its effects upon other systems. If we want to actually learn something from it, we have to break it down in the MOST intelligent way; just like how we learn about anything.

I also agree with your "discrimination" against "indigo" as a logical part of understanding the color system. I actually recognized and considered this as, and after I was posting about it. If we were trying to divide the color spectrum logically (past it all being just "one thing, ie color), then that would mean that in terms of available frequency (ie capacity for color expression), then we would give each color 16.7% of the spectrum, except for indigo and violet splitting their share at 8.3%.

From just looking at this organization, we can tell that "indigo" and "violet" share the same amount as the other colors, and should be considered to describe the same thing. So logically we should divide the spectrum into 6 colors, not 7. You say that "modern science" laughs at the idea of dividing it into 7 colors, but I think that it was an intended trick. That it was meant to give you the "right" answer functionally, but from an incorrect derivation of why it is. I still think that the color spectrum should be "divided" by 6. But I also still think that the number of colors we can determine rationally is 7! Let me show you how and why I am not contradicting myself when I say this. And maybe you can accept this as a piece of evidence that science has the right answers but for the wrong reasons.

Okay from looking at natural systems, I understand that they usually manifest on "7 levels" of differentiation. So these colors are going to need to have something that proves "why" they are different from another color. I want to first discuss it from the perspective of "pigment." To go along with the "7" notion, I also understand that all energy manifested in reality, "generates" itself from 3 different levels.

Let me list some examples of this "3" generative property, not to prove anything, but to show you specifically how and what I am talking about. The most stable structure in the universe is the triangle, a joining of 3 separate pieces to form it. If you simplify the basics of physics you can see how this will turn up. You could look at it from my "dimensions" chart, and apply it to the aspects of reality, in which: mass, energy, and a pathway (in this case, the constant "c", representing the speed of light), are the 3 requirements to satisfy the physics equation that defines force. That is pretty general and encompassing, but let's also look at what "generates" what we call human consciousness, from which we can act to create force. The 3 parts that we CAN control, is our thoughts, our emotions, and our actions. Just like in every other "force" or "work" dynamic, it naturally manifests by this power of 3. Even the force that is "God" is said to be represented by the "trinity."

So let's look for this "defining trinity" within the color spectrum. We can see that there is generally a trend towards 6 immediately visible colors, but if we start comparing the differences and similarities, (just like taking the "derivative" mathematically of a function in order to find any "extreme" points where the flow changes) then we can see that 3 colors emerge, and according to their measured pigment, they can exist while sharing none of the pigment from the other two colors. Red, yellow, and blue. Our "generative" pattern of color. Since we can combine any two of these primary colors, it will form a secondary color at each interval. Orange, green, and purple. These colors take up an equal amount of space as the primary colors. And as the primary colors can only exist independent from the other two colors, the secondary colors can only exist in combination of them.

We can prove that a primary color is primary, by adding another color that is "very close and yet undetermined" to see if the color, "stays yellow" for example, or whether it begins to change in frequency to something else. We can also prove what a secondary color is, by defining it as being a combined expression, and testing that it always contains two primary colors and never just one. All this to get a real set of definable and workable pieces, but what about the "7th" color that I mentioned earlier, and should be expecting any natural system to have?

Well here is where it gets tricky. Color exists in two ways. Just as I have been stating that everything can be defined by a particle or a wave, and that we lack the vocabulary in our English language (such as "es" and "estas") to even represent the difference between these two fundamental ways that reality can exist in. I have been talking about "pigment," which is just color existing as a "particle. But as I'm sure you know, color can also exist as a "wave."

We get the 7th "color" frequency by combing all three primary colors, instead of just 2 at a time. This combination of ALL colors represents the 7th color. But the color that it gives us is different, depending on whether we are looking at color as a pigment or a wave. If we are looking at color as a pigment/object, then when we combine all the colors it gives us "black." This can even be shown from scientific studies, that "albinos" are "lacking pigment" production. It isn't something "added" that makes them all white, it is something "removed."

And of course, when we combine the primary colors as a wave (action/expression), then the color it becomes is "white." As normal visible light contains the entire spectrum of the "colored frequencies" that make it up. So we have derived the full 7 colors definable to light, and definable to pigment. Even though "colors" seem to be the same thing, the difference between being a particle and being a wave is HUGE. And I think this is a great metaphor for "expression" and how we "use" system and methods (the rhetoric). If we combine all colors, as a pigment we get black, filled and weighed down with every color, and unable to be anything other than black. But if we combine all colors as a wave, then we get white, filled with every color, yet easily broken down into any of them (such as with a prism, and the different refraction rate of each frequency of color as it travels through a medium).

I would like you to compare how this color organization works, as a metaphor for how your science works. You may have looked at everything, but you have only looked at everything as an object, a pigment. And by only looking at it in this way, you have determined that it is better to use each color on its own (like the very specialized way that science is taught/practiced), and that combing too much of it will give you an "unworkable black" that you can't really use or determine differences within.

I think that my method (or simply a more "enlightened" method) is much closer to looking at everything as a "wave." Yes, you can still get specific use out of each color. But when you combine them, it gives you something that can still be worked with. Something that easily breaks back down into its base components, and easily combines to a whole again.

I am willing to talk about pigment, don't get me wrong. But it seems like talking about "expressions" rather than "objects" is a much more flexible way to achieve real answers of how everything combines to form the order of the universe. If you are unwilling to look at this contrast between object and expression, then you won't be able to keep discussing this information with me.

Joeknows wrote:You edited down my post until it sounded like I was contradicting myself. A very sly tactic from someone that only cares about winning the argument, because his actual philosophical understanding is just nonexistent. I am still saying BOTH of what I said, because they are TWO statements, and NOT just one.

You think that two statements cannot contradict each other? Really?

You just don't know what you're talking about. Honestly, you should just quit posting. You are embarrassing yourself.

Pigments and waves, oh my.

Joeknows wrote:You want some unifying factor that contributed to the evolution of life as we know it.

I don't "want" some particular thing to be true. I just want to know what is true. You're lying again.

Joeknows wrote:the common factor of needing oxygen to for respiration

Wrong. Many species do not need O₂ to live. In fact, some species are obligate anaerobes, meaning that not only do they not need oxygen gas, they are killed by trying to use oxygen gas.
This isn't a "common factor" at all. You still don't know what you're talking about.

Joeknows wrote:are all common conditions that could have shaped a species to be "similar" in nature to all others.

Good grief. That's a special level of obliviousness you have there.
The biochemical "machinery" (and I use that word only illustratively) of all life is astoundingly similar. For example, the heart of all cellular translation uses collections of RNA molecules, even if the organisms themselves are radically different. This is just one piece that suggests that all modern life originated from a single life form that had that characteristic. While that one piece of evidence alone isn't enough, the fact that we have dozens of examples of this is enough. These are details that go beyond your cockamamie cries of "gravity!" and "environment!" (In fact, the environments in which we find organisms vary dramatically, yet the basic cellular functions are still the same.)

Joeknows wrote:That's NOT what it is saying.

That IS what it is saying. There's no other interpretation of it. Your attempt to deflect using the narrow example of "occularization is the only way to gain visual information" is a tautology, which is a statement with no explanatory power. Much like virtually everything you post, of course.

Joeknows wrote:This is something I don't know much about

I'd add it to the list, but I stopped keeping a list when it got as long as my arm.

Joeknows wrote:so I will research it some.

I doubt it.

Joeknows wrote:But it still doesn't change the functionality of the over-arching way that I describe this system.

It absolutely refutes your statement that rapid evolution doesn't occur.

Joeknows wrote:I admit when I'm wrong

No, you don't. For example, you're wrong here, and we've given you links and now a specific example (cichlids), and you're throwing your hands up and saying, "Well, um, uh, so, um, yeah, I'll have to research that."
I also noticed that you made the claim that we've never seen one or two species giving rise to a new species, but you were buried in links that show that you're just blatantly wrong, and instead of "admitting when you're wrong," you just pretended that it never happened.

Joeknows wrote:I'm not sure what you are even talking about.

I know!

Joeknows wrote:This isn't a "new" form of energy. This is the same energy that you know, and have been working with all your life. When I said that you "probably" aren't talking about the same type of energy as me, I meant that you didn't understand its full expression, and how that relates to the energy of every single situation.

Completely contradictory. I made a point to say that "my" energy is the kind that applies to everything, but your argument is to say that I didn't know that you're talking about the energy that applies to everything.
And, in fact, this is exactly what I said you were doing. Let's look back:

Earlier, Savonarola wrote:

Joeknows wrote:I am talking about some form of "energy" that it probably isn't the same type that you have looked at from a logical perspective and KNOW for as true as you can see it.

So you've looked, and you KNOW that your energy is not energy but it's energy that isn't energy like my energy as long as it's still energy.

You claim that you are talking about a form of energy that is outside of my purview of energy, but my purview of energy necessarily includes all energy. Now you say that it's the same energy I know and love. So yes, yes it is the same energy that I know and love, and because it's the same energy that I know and love (and know much, much better than you know it), my refutation of your nonsense stands.
But you won't be admitting that you're wrong, because you never do.

Joeknows wrote:Energy SHOWS how information connects with reality.

You said this earlier. It was just as wrong the first time.

Joeknows wrote:I am talking about "WORK" here. I am not talking about the potential for something to react or not react, or this potential energy that you described.

Work is a form of energy. You probably don't understand this.
See, what you're talking about here is thermodynamics. The topic of thermodynamics is, arguably, one of the hardest things to understand. Fortunately, I have extensive training and understanding of thermodynamics, much more than you'll find in most any other random person you find on the internet. Suffice it to say that your babbling about thermodynamics is of the level that you don't even know that what you're talking about is called thermodynamics.

Joeknows wrote:If there is nothing "pushing" the reaction, then there will be no reaction, and it will remain "potential energy."

Now this is kinetics. So it's clear that your model needs both thermodynamics and kinetics to explain what's going on. That's good, because we do need both in reality to explain what's going on. But you don't know anything about how the two are related, and when they're not.

Joeknows wrote:I appreciate your scientific knowledge

No you don't. You're pretending that I don't have it.
If you appreciated scientific knowledge, you'd get some yourself.

Joeknows wrote: And we can identify this "fueling" energy in every situation, and draw more general conclusions about how it operates, than just the ones that science offers us.

You keep saying this, yet you never do this. You just make big claims with no justification.

Joeknows wrote:It has to work BOTH ways. The small has to verify the large. And the large has to verify the small.

Wrong. Using a standard example: Just because entropy inside a system decreases doesn't mean that the entropy of everything decreases.

Joeknows wrote: If you didn't recognize that you had to destroy the functionality of the system to get this information

But I don't have to destroy the system to get that information. I can use a live rat and do open-heart surgery. I can use a live rat and use functional imaging. I can use a live rat and other information gleaned from observing other organisms.
You taint the thought experiment by saying that I look at a dead rat and determine that all rat hearts don't beat. Rather, dead rat hearts don't beat. But this is the opposite of what I am doing: I am saying that we look at all energy (all rat hearts), not a subset of energy (only dead rat hearts). What a dolt.

Joeknows wrote: Symbolically, 10 is 1 exponential degree above "1"

Yes, it is. That's how place values work. The same is true in any counting system. Consider binary, base-2: The first counting value is one (1). Now multiply it by "10" (which is 2) raised to the first power: you get "10," which is binary for 2. Do it again: "10" times "10" raised to the power of one, is 100, which is binary for 4.

In base ten,
1×10^1 = 10
10×10^1 = 100

But in binary:
1×10^1 = 10
10×10^1 = 100

Remember how binary works: "1" means 1, "10" means 2, "11" means 3, "100" means 4, etc.

Let's translate:
[1×10^1 = 10] means 1×2^1 = 2
[10×10^1 = 100] means 2×2^1 = 4
It's still true. Base-ten is not required. This is just how counting systems work. There is still nothing special about ten (just as there is nothing special about 7). You're still wrong about this, and you still won't admit it.

Joeknows wrote:This relates to morality.

No it doesn't. Not at all.
What a dolt.

Joeknows wrote:At least you recognize my argument, that you are blinded by "historical science."

Please learn how to read. I pointed out that you are blinded by Newton's history.

Joeknows wrote:So logically we should divide the spectrum into 6 colors, not 7.... This combination of ALL colors represents the 7th color.

Awesome. Thanks for making it even easier to show that you don't have the first clue what you're talking about.
First, according to you, one of the seven colors is indigo, and it ABSOLUTELY MUST BE A REAL COLOR REALLY -- you know, even though the visible spectrum is continuous and with color varying by wavelength.
But now, indigo doesn't count, and the combination of all visible wavelengths -- white light -- is the seventh color. But white isn't a color of light. There is no wavelength that corresponds to (or produces) white.
So not only did you try to change horses midstream, you jumped off of your drowning horse trying to get to a horse that doesn't even exist.

Here we see two very simple examples of how you are voluntarily restricting your information based on what little you already know. You have ten fingers and use base-ten exclusively, so you insist that base-ten is the only logical counting system. It's not. Newton labeled seven colors, so you thought there were seven colors. But we now label only six major colors, so you tried hacking your idea to accommodate this change; your problem was that you were stuck needing seven colors, so you declared white -- a non-color -- to be a color.

You're just making this shit up as you go along. You're done here.