François Roddier, thermodynamics and society

[sen-no-sen]

It's beautiful ! It's poetic! It's ... philosophical and hypothetical as this probably points out that it would probably be possible to bottle Paris. Now, as learned in school when everything is removed and there is something left, it is because we have not removed everything. It's Devos pure and hard: " Nothing is nothing, three times nothing, it's not much, but it's already something ! "No particle physicist.

Janic, you should avoid talking about a subject that you barely discover and that you do not master.
The philosopher Leibniz asked the following question:why is there something rather than nothing".
Many people have broken their teeth, and obviously your denture also seems attacked!

In reality there is never anything,because nothingness is a postulate(assertion considered true but whose prerequisite is not demonstrated), postulate resulting from a binary deduction linked to our subjective experience of everyday life.
When I put my bunch of key on the table it is there, and if I remove them they are not, then we can deduce two states:
1) exists.
2) does not exist.
Either the reasoning of any good computer!

This vision of things loses all its validity when one passes to the atomic scale, or the particles are in superimpositions of state before being measured, they can thus be, not be, be and not be, not not and at the same time, so-called concept tetravalent.

Outside we know how to make total vacuum in a device (vacuum chamber) and we notice that appears from the vacuum of virtual particles that self annihilate by peer, this is what we call quantum vacuum.
So there is no nothingness, but a full emptiness, and as for our matter it is made up of 100% of this full void, whether you like it or not ...

The biblical discourse (which you do not have to share obviously) does not trace its historicity to Abraham and therefore your 1800 years before JC but well, much earlier and not until the monkeys of Darwin and his followers, but to the original human and so many centuries before so-called historical

This is completely false, except for the Bénitier frogs or Texan televangelists.
The historicity of the OT is valid (and still) only from Abraham, the entire previous period is a myth, a myth essentially derived from recovery of past beliefs (as the epic of Gilgamesh).
It's really having a fundamentalist vision of thought that a religion would have appeared ex nihilo(Sic! ), all existing beliefs on earth are based on earlier thought systems, and the Bible is no exception.

Especially blah blah since these previous evolutions are impossible to prove and are therefore only hypotheses and a hypothesis is not demonstration of facts and even less evidence.

So you do not read the Bible ...?
Several TA passages refer to Ashera (mother goddess) YHW's companion

That's his name. Generous and beautiful, Ashera is, in the lineage of the Astarte, Ishtar and Inanna, a goddess adulated by a large majority of Hebrews from the 7th and 6th centuries BC. our era, alongside her husband. She has an image in the sky since she is likened to the planet Venus as her Mesopotamian sisters. She was not unknown. But it was a simple goddess ... in appearance. Indeed, there are few inscriptions on steles revealed to archaeologists that the Hebrews venerated "Yahweh and his Asherah ". God has a wife! This is a heresy for those who misinterpreted the presence of this goddess mentioned in the Old Testament by Jeremiah. The prophet, in exile with the Jews deported to Babylon, reproaches his compatriots their veneration for this impure goddess, represented on statuettes as a woman with bare breasts. The business of Jeremiah remains unsuccessful: the Jews say that both in Jerusalem and Babylon, Ashera is generous and offers them bread in large quantities. And to support their point, they do not fail to remind him that others before him had made them abandon the cult of Ashera and that the result was "the sword and the famine" (Jeremiah 44, 17-19).
God will eventually lose his wife ... inexplicably in the biblical story. It will disappear until our days when the epigraphy reveals to us that Ashera, more than a simple goddess, is the wife of Yahweh. In fact, Ashera disappears from the life of Yahweh at the time of the great religious reform undertaken by King Josiah (sixth century) and ended by the scribe Esdras (fifth century). During this pivotal period of religious history, Jews go from monolatry - considering Yahweh as their god among all others - to monotheism - the recognition of one and only God on earth. The divorce was severe but Ashera reappears after 2500 years under the brushstrokes of archaeologists on the ancient land of Canaan.

http://lesitedelhistoire.blogspot.fr/2012/06/ashera-lepouse-de-yahve.html

END OF HS !!!!!

[Janic]

Janic, you should avoid talking about a subject that you barely discover and that you do not master.
The philosopher Leibniz asked the following question: why is there something rather than nothing ".
Many people have broken their teeth, and obviously your denture also seems attacked!

No dentures, so no risk! But actually I do not master this subject, so it's more a basic reaction like anyone met on the street.

Outside we know how to make total vacuum in a device (vacuum chamber) and we notice that appears from the vacuum of virtual particles that self annihilate by peer, this is what we call quantum vacuum.
So there is no nothingness, but a full emptiness, and as for our matter it is made up of 100% of this full void, whether you like it or not ...

I do not master the subject, but I'm not completely stupid so far and this aspect has already been seen about black energy for example, but it dates! And the full emptiness suits me perfectly, I've always been a fan of science and fiction and I watch documentaries on these subjects as much as I can.
But, and this has also been seen, quantum physics and Newtonian physics do not obey the same rules and from memory an author claimed that this link was still not made. But I'm not a specialist of course

The biblical discourse (which you do not have to share obviously) does not trace its historicity to Abraham and therefore your 1800 years before JC but well, much earlier and not until the monkeys of Darwin and his followers, but to the original human and so many centuries before so-called historical

The historicity of the OT is valid (and still) only from Abraham, the whole previous period is the myth, a myth essentially derived from recovery of past beliefs (as the epic of Gilgamesh).

Already seen ! The epic of Gilgamesh (which is only a true myth) may as well have been copied on the history of the Hebrews. But a myth can not be considered as a historical model, and so is the epic of Gilgamesh.

It is really having a fundamentalist vision that thought that a religion would have appeared ex nihilo (sic!
all existing beliefs on earth are based on earlier thought systems, and the Bible is no exception.

a) Fundamentalism, our societies are full: in politics, in medicine, in everything else. The question is rather to know if this fundamentalism corresponds to a useful social reality, even necessary like: freedom, equality, fraternity.
b) Religion, is not an entity, but a practice and any practice whatsoever, it needs a beginning justified by a particular environment like any law. Before the diversion of the planes there was no law authorizing or prohibiting this practice, its vote, then its application, is a kind of exnihilo. Before no, after yes and not asking for billions of years.

Especially blah blah since these previous evolutions are impossible to prove and are therefore only hypotheses and a hypothesis is not demonstration of facts and even less evidence.

So you do not read the Bible ...?

Only a little ! More than 20 years in a regular way, even intensive, the rest, not to read simply but to make exegeses, which is a little more complicated than to make a copied / pasted.
So you should STUDY this Bible before, how to say, " you should avoid talking about a subject that you barely discover and that you do not master. »

Several TA passages refer to Ashera (mother goddess) YHW's companion

It is necessary to see who writes this kind of prose in individuals who do not know the complete history of this population and thus tell C .... es!
But (but closely study the subject which is not limited to Jeremiah 44.) It is not therefore a wife of YHWH, but the consideration that these Hebrews, to please their Egyptian wives worshiping idols including a goddess of heaven, do the same. She is therefore not the wife of YHWH (yet he does have "one" (as far as he can have any), but which one if you know these texts?) But as " you hardly discover and that you do not control. " the subject is likely to ask you a job.
So a little bit of exegesis:
Jeremy is one of the reformers who, as in any society is generally bad and these passages cited bear witness. Reforming means returning to its original form. The story of the Hebrews is a succession of back and forth between the one or those who offer the most benefits in everyday life and our society knows something about it. To have bread to satiate is always more attractive than to have to tighten your belt and that's what these men do, as anyone else would do and it's not the reproach that is done to them. The reason is therefore different, but which precisely?

[Janic]

To leave the biblical domain, I come back to this part and the use of the term probably:
"The origin of matter, even of the universe, finds its source in the quantum vacuum. "
"We are stardust, we already knew that, but now we can say that matter, everything around us, IS PROBABLY the result of quantum fluctuations in vacuum. These quantum fluctuations are at the origin of the Big Bang, and then through a phase change linked to the Higgs boson, the origin of matter and light, of mass as we know it. This is a major PHILOSOPHICAL contribution, concludes Michel Spiro. A conceptual upheaval which has anthropological consequences. "

What is this PROBABLY doing in a speech full of affirmations, of certainties, it was enough to write: " everything around us comes from quantum fluctuations "and the (dogmatic) discourse would have remained in harmony with itself.
probably, adverb
• Meaning 1
Presumably, who will come from possible way, according to one uncertain estimate.
Example: The sky is covering, I think we'd better go back, it will probably rain in a few minutes.
Synonym: perhaps

And immediately after, as just before that, the formulation of this author relies, on the contrary on a principle of certainty. More question of possible, more question of uncertain, more question of perhaps.
Unfortunately, it is common practice to mix si, perhaps to immediately afterwards become affirmative.
Does the author seek to be self-sufficient in being right while doubting at the same time? Or does he not master the meaning of words?

[sen-no-sen]

What is this PROBABLY doing in a speech full of affirmations, of certainties, it was enough to write: " everything around us comes from quantum fluctuations "and the (dogmatic) discourse would have remained in harmony with itself. (...)
And immediately after, as just before that, the formulation of this author relies, on the contrary on a principle of certainty. More question of possible, more question of uncertain, more question of perhaps.
Unfortunately, it is common practice to mix si, perhaps to immediately afterwards become affirmative.
Does the author seek to be self-sufficient in being right while doubting at the same time? Or does he not master the meaning of words?

Janic no scientific theory is verified at 100% because it would be repeated an infinite number of times an experiment to be able to determine an absolute certainty .... which is impossible.

There are competing theories to the emergence of the Universe from the quantum vacuum, especially that of the ekpyrotic Univer*.
That's why we talk about probabilities.
The certainties are only for the followers of the dogmatisms ....


* Theory that we find under the name of cosmological natural selection developed especially by Lee smolin.
In are work thermodynamics of evolution, François Roddier refers to it, this approach being deductively very interesting because of the similarity with the observation that one operates in the domains of the evolution of the systems.

The theory of natural cosmological selection (or fertile universes) proposed by Lee Smolin in 1992 suggests that a process analogous to natural biological selection is applied at larger scales. Smolin summed up his idea in The Life of the Cosmos.
The theory presumes that the collapse of black holes causes the emergence of new universes on the "other side" whose fundamental constants (celerity of light, Plank wall, etc.) may differ slightly from those of the parent black holes. . Each universe thus gives birth to as many universes as it has black holes and some universes can die by thermal death for lack of adequate cosmological constants before giving offspring. Thus, the theory contains the evolutionary ideas of reproduction and mutation of universes as well as natural selection. For Smolin, the most fertile universes, that is to say those likely to produce the most "baby-universes", are the universes rich in carbon and oxygen, or moreover universes capable of harboring life as that we know it. Such a theory is a response to the strong anthropic principle.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9lection_naturelle_cosmologique

[Janic]

Janic no scientific theory is verified at 100% because it would be repeated an infinite number of times an experiment to be able to determine an absolute certainty .... which is impossible.
There are competing theories to that of the appearance of the universe from the quantum vacuum, especially that of the ekpyrotic Univer *.
That's why we talk about probabilities.
The certainties are only for the followers of the dogmatisms ....

I completely agree with this idea that there is no absolute certainty in anything. My criticism is therefore not on this aspect, but on the mixture of grammatical genres so I emphasize this aspect in your quoted text:

La THEORY of the cosmological natural selection (or fertile universe) proposed by Lee Smolin in 1992, SUGGESTED that a process analogous to natural biological selection aPPLY at larger scales. Smolin summed up his idea in The Life of the Cosmos.
The theory ALLEGED that the collapse of black holes CAUSES the emergence of new universes of the "other side" whose fundamental constants (celerity of the light, wall of Plank, etc.) can differ slightly from those of the black holes spawners. Each universe gives birth to as many universes as it has black holes and certain universes CAN die by thermal death for lack of adequate cosmological constants before giving offspring. So, THE THEORY contains the evolutionary ideas of reproduction and mutation of universes as well as natural selection. For Smolin, the most fertile universes, that is to say those likely to produce the most "baby-universes", are the universes rich in carbon and oxygen, or moreover universes capable of harboring life as that we know it. Such theory is a response to the strong anthropic principle.

So I repeat this text with QUE suppositions and we can do the same thing with only affirmations.
" The THEORY of the cosmological natural selection (or fertile universe) proposed by Lee Smolin in 1992, SUGGESTED that a process analogous to natural biological selection if aPPLY at larger scales. Smolin summed up his idea in The Life of the Cosmos.
La PRESUME theory that the collapse of black holes WOULD CAUSE the emergence of new universes of the "other side" whose fundamental constants (celerity of the light, wall of Plank, etc.) COULD slightly differ from those of the black breeding holes. Every universe WOULD GIVE thus birth to as many universes as he POSSESS black holes and some universes COULD die by thermal death for lack of adequate cosmological constants before giving offspring. So, THE THEORY contains the evolutionary ideas of reproduction and mutation of universes as well as natural selection. For Smolin, the most fertile universes, that is to say capable of producing the most "baby-universes", WOULD the worlds rich in carbon and oxygen, or else universes likely to house life as we know it. Such a theory would be a response to the strong anthropic principle.
There it is correct grammatically speaking, WHAT DOES NOT GIVE THE SAME THING!

* Theory that we find under the name of cosmological natural selection developed in particular by Lee Smolin.

Same thing ! What I blame Roddier, like others, is not their "hypothetical scientific" rant, it's their job, but their mix of genres from assumption to affirmation. But at the same time, if all their literature was enamelled only with conditionalities, no one would grant them sufficient credit. And that's not what they are looking for, but its opposite.

[Ahmed]

This reproach of grammatical incorrectness seems to me unfounded: si the hypothesis is true, then the consequence is this ...
The conditional can not be used within what is determined by the initial condition.

[Janic]

ahmed hello

This reproach of grammatical incorrectness seems to me unfounded: if the hypothesis is true, then the consequence is that ...
The conditional can not be used within what is determined by the initial condition.

Yes if and only if, but we are not there yet! So you can't use a formulation that turns something improbable into something effective. You know the formula: "if my aunt had any, she would be called my uncle"and no one calls him my uncle. [*]
Subtle minds such as yours (and of course mine, of course !!!!!) can perceive the nuance that may represent, but most of the time the formulation will be taken as a fait accompli. So to avoid any ambiguity or misinterpretation, the conditional should be from end to end. it is, moreover, what happens when a hypothesis is made and the author takes all the grammatical precautions necessary to avoid being accused of taking his desires for realities. Only when this theoretician (as in politics) is going to find aficionados will he gradually transform his formulation from the conditional to the present.
This is what happened for the theory of evolution, without real biological and scientific supports, but arriving right at a time of conflicts of ideas between the instituted and dominant religions and atheistic rationalism and Darwin offered to these last, on a silver platter, "solid" arguments, in appearance only. The same phenomenon occurred when Pasteur sparked immense hope of eradicating fear of epidemics (if not epidemics themselves) decimating entire populations; this happened again with AIDS which also caused a panic fear of contamination, but based on a simple supposition to have discovered (in fact to have stolen from the French) the cause: HIV, etc ... the story is full!
Take back all that is said about the H., by its opponents, with the presuppositions of not only incompetent people on this subject, but who in addition take back for false information spread by the pharmaceutical lobbies which protect their lucrative economy and which are transformed, in the eyes of some, into evidence, as into supposed facts.

[*] although with endocrine disrupters more and more widespread it can actually become a reality as it is seen more and more in some animals.

[sen-no-sen]

Janic you write:

Same thing ! What I blame Roddier, like others, is not their "hypothetical scientific" rant, it's their job, but their mix of genres from assumption to affirmation. But at the same time, if all their literature was enamelled only with conditionalities, no one would grant them sufficient credit. And that's not what they are looking for, but its opposite.

The works of François Roddier are based on a clever synthesis on thermodynamics, it is not about rantings.
IF you had read are book , you would have seen that the latter clearly indicates when one of his analyzes remains hypothetical, this is particularly the case on cosmology but also on the forecast of future scenarios.
So start by reading all of his blog, then go to his book, analyze the facts and then we will discuss again.

[Janic]

The works of François Roddier are based on a clever synthesis on thermodynamics, it is not about rantings.
If you had read their work, you would have seen that it clearly indicates when one of its analyzes remains hypothetical, this is particularly the case on the cosmology but also on the forecast of future scenarios.
So start by reading all of his blog, then go to his book, analyze the facts and then we will discuss again.

I did not discuss the substance, but the form, namely the confused grammatical composition of the quoted author. For the rest, I am not particularly interested in these reflections. For his blog I read a lot, but as it is not my cup of tea (or herbal tea) I have not intervened since time.
However, if a mechanic (or any other professional) suggested that theoretically the vehicle can work after his intervention, more than one customer would come out reassured, but obviously it does not concern certain professions!
If not in my mind, the term "lucubration" is neither insulting nor derogatory, especially since the rantings have been and still are my favorite intellectual gymnastics.
Action to elucidate; laborious and patient research to compose a scholarly work or a text of a certain length.

[sen-no-sen]

If not in my mind, the term "lucubration" is neither insulting nor derogatory, especially since the rantings have been and still are my favorite intellectual gymnastics.
Action to elucidate; laborious and patient research to compose a scholarly work or a text of a certain length.

The whole problem is there: in your brain the word "lucubration" is not insulting, but in the world of vocabulary "lucubration" means absurd theory, which is particularly insulting to a scientist.
Except if there is a science that is not absurd is thermodynamics!
Besides, despite many post extension you have still not been able to bring the slightest counter argumentation.