# I Have a  Question



## ambush80 (Nov 30, 2017)

Sometimes I have string or tie down straps in my truck bed.  Often times after driving around they tie themselves into over hand knots.  I've also seen a half hitch thrown around a loop.  Does this show order or complexity coming from disorder?


----------



## atlashunter (Nov 30, 2017)

Zeus works in mysterious ways.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 30, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Zeus works in mysterious ways.



Indeed he does but do these knots show the opposite of entropy?  Also, is me interpreting the knots as some kind of order or design the same thing as what this guy is doing?


----------



## 660griz (Nov 30, 2017)

Ever seen those perfect ice circles in rivers? Spooky!


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 30, 2017)

Visualize the action required — I once tied a "figure eight" knot in the butt section of my 7'/8' leader while fly fishing.  Can we prove or disprove anything, including entropy, by observing an infinitesimally small piece of it?


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 30, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> Visualize the action required — I once tied a "figure eight" knot in the butt section of my 7'/8' leader while fly fishing.  Can we prove or disprove anything, including entropy, by observing an infinitesimally small piece of it?



I think so.  If someone makes a claim like "order cannot arise from disorder" but my (and your) examples show that it can, then they should stop making that claim.


----------



## j_seph (Nov 30, 2017)

can we say that we had a perfectly straight, knot free strap or string but once man got involved with it then it ended up not being straight and having knots in it


----------



## NCHillbilly (Nov 30, 2017)

It shows that Tydowneus, the god of truck-bed ratchet straps, lives and performs his wonders in the heart of your truck bed, just like he does in mine. Since we are fairly widely situated apart geographically, but the same phenomenon occurs to both of us; then we can construe that Tydowneus is indeed a universal god, and has a plan for both of our truck-beds.


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 30, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> I think so.  If someone makes a claim like "order cannot arise from disorder" but my (and your) examples show that it can, then they should stop making that claim.



Would not "order" require that all proportionally elongated flexible objects (strings, straps, lines, ropes, etc.), or a defined and predictable subset of all such objects, be shown to ultimately rest in a defined and predictable condition (overhand, figure eight, bowline, etc.)?  I don't see how the occasional observation is anything other than anecdotal.


----------



## swampstalker24 (Nov 30, 2017)

The argument that complexity must arise by design is an easy argument to dismiss...   Mainly because in order to design complexity, the designer must be atleast somewhat more complex than his design...  No biggie except then you are left with the notion that if the creator is so complex, by that same argument you would have to assume something even more complex created the creator...    What you are left with is infinitie regression in which complexity increases exponentially the further up the chain you go.  Im ok with that notion but im not sure the creationists are.


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 30, 2017)

swampstalker24 said:


> The argument that complexity must arise by design is an easy argument to dismiss...   Mainly because in order to design complexity, the designer must be atleast somewhat more complex than his design...  No biggie except then you are left with the notion that if the creator is so complex, by that same argument you would have to assume something even more complex created the creator...    What you are left with is infinitie regression in which complexity increases exponentially the further up the chain you go.  Im ok with that notion but im not sure the creationists are.



How does infinite regression have any meaning other than, ultimately, no beginning.  How does no beginning have a result?  No ultimate cause ... no effect.  You are not.


----------



## rospaw (Nov 30, 2017)

This is not the Pf,Ot or CF? ..... This place is STRANGE! (truck straps)   I think i shall move quickly out of here.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Nov 30, 2017)

It shows the randomness in the universe.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 30, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> How does infinite regression have any meaning other than, ultimately, no beginning.  How does no beginning have a result?  No ultimate cause ... no effect.  You are not.



The ideas of nothing and infinity are hard.  The idea of an eternal, all powerful being is an easy answer but much harder to understand.  Impossible, really, and therefore practically useless.  It's a sloppy placeholder for what we don't understand.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 30, 2017)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It shows the randomness in the universe.



Is it order from chaos, though?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Nov 30, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> Is it order from chaos, though?



You perceive it as order. What if you'd wanted those lines to stay separate and orderly versus knotted? You wouldn't consider the knot to be more orderly and anti-entropic would you?


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 30, 2017)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You perceive it as order. What if you'd wanted those lines to stay separate and orderly versus knotted? You wouldn't consider the knot to be more orderly and anti-entropic would you?



That's kind of my point.  We project meaning or design onto the results of randomness.  When "wind knots" get "tied" in DNA all of a sudden it's a miracle.


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 30, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> The ideas of nothing and infinity are hard.  The idea of an eternal, all powerful being is an easy answer but much harder to understand.  Impossible, really, and therefore practically useless.  It's a sloppy placeholder for what we don't understand.



Yes it is; and that’s why it must be experienced.  If it is possible for one to place themselves in a place conducive to experiencing the Infinite, that place must be nothingness; for Infinity allows no place for other.


----------



## swampstalker24 (Nov 30, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> How does infinite regression have any meaning other than, ultimately, no beginning.  How does no beginning have a result?  No ultimate cause ... no effect.  You are not.



It means your god requires a creator....  A notion most monotheists would prefer to ignore.


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 30, 2017)

hummerpoo said:


> How does infinite regression have any meaning other than, ultimately, no beginning.  How does no beginning have a result?  No ultimate cause ... no effect.  You are not.





swampstalker24 said:


> It means your god requires a creator....  A notion most monotheists would prefer to ignore.


once again


hummerpoo said:


> How does infinite regression have any meaning other than, ultimately, no beginning.  How does no beginning have a result?  No ultimate cause ... no effect.  You are not.


----------



## red neck richie (Nov 30, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> Sometimes I have string or tie down straps in my truck bed.  Often times after driving around they tie themselves into over hand knots.  I've also seen a half hitch thrown around a loop.  Does this show order or complexity coming from disorder?



Nope wind and gravity.


----------



## bullethead (Nov 30, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> Nope wind and gravity.



Who designed wind and gravity?


----------



## red neck richie (Nov 30, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Who designed wind and gravity?



I stand corrected you are right. God created wind and gravity therefore it actually is of his doing. But not in a spiritual sense more of a physical creation.


----------



## Israel (Dec 2, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> The ideas of nothing and infinity are hard.  The idea of an eternal, all powerful being is an easy answer but much harder to understand.  Impossible, really, and therefore practically useless.  It's a sloppy placeholder for what we don't understand.



God knows before you there is need for One to stand between. And He is rightly provided. He alone, is necessary to man.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 2, 2017)

red neck richie said:


> I stand corrected you are right. God created wind and gravity therefore it actually is of his doing. But not in a spiritual sense more of a physical creation.



10-4 wink wink


----------



## bullethead (Dec 2, 2017)

Israel said:


> God knows before you there is need for One to stand between. And He is rightly provided. He alone, is necessary to man.



Lucky the council voted(not unanimous) for that "one" huh?


----------



## Israel (Dec 3, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> The ideas of nothing and infinity are hard.  The idea of an eternal, all powerful being is an easy answer but much harder to understand.  Impossible, really, and therefore practically useless.  It's a sloppy placeholder for what we don't understand.



Are you a prophet?


> practically useless



He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.



> It's a sloppy placeholder for what we don't understand.



As many were astonished at you; so his appearance was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:

A placeholder, who held His place. 

Much like a zero changes 1, to 10, or 1,000,000, a man who allowed himself to be made as nothing, of no resistance to God, that God might come through Him.

The immeasurable measure of God is found in the measure of this man's humility to appear.
For us.

He holds His place.
For us.


----------



## drippin' rock (Dec 4, 2017)

NCHillbilly said:


> It shows that Tydowneus, the god of truck-bed ratchet straps, lives and performs his wonders in the heart of your truck bed, just like he does in mine. Since we are fairly widely situated apart geographically, but the same phenomenon occurs to both of us; then we can construe that Tydowneus is indeed a universal god, and has a plan for both of our truck-beds.



All hail Tydowneus.


----------



## drippin' rock (Dec 4, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> Sometimes I have string or tie down straps in my truck bed.  Often times after driving around they tie themselves into over hand knots.  I've also seen a half hitch thrown around a loop.  Does this show order or complexity coming from disorder?



A knot is a tangle we named.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 4, 2017)

drippin' rock said:


> A knot is a tangle we named.



Like "RNA"?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 4, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> That's kind of my point.  We project meaning or design onto the results of randomness.  When "wind knots" get "tied" in DNA all of a sudden it's a miracle.



Not quite the case. One sees wind knots as you say, the other sees someone tying the knots. Since neither saw either happen, they both choose the explanation that they like best.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 4, 2017)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Not quite the case. One sees wind knots as you say, the other sees someone tying the knots. Since neither saw either happen, they both choose the explanation that they like best.


Hmmm...
"Like best" or "based on evidence"?
1. unknotted rope in back of truck
2. wind whipping around in back of moving truck
3. rope now in a knot

I like the explanation that Sandra Bullock was hiding in the back of my truck and tied the rope in knots the best but..... no evidence of Sandra, just the unknotted rope, wind and then a knotted rope.
As opposed to... even if you believe in God, believe he has the ability to invisibly tie the rope in a knot.. whats the evidence that he actually did it?


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 4, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Hmmm...
> "Like best" or "based on evidence"?
> 1. unknotted rope in back of truck
> 2. wind whipping around in back of moving truck
> ...



Each person has their own criteria by which they make that decision. As such, no one answer can be made here.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 4, 2017)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Each person has their own criteria by which they make that decision. As such, no one answer can be made here.


I agree and disagree 
While I agree there may be individual criteria, available physical evidence ie. no knot, wind, knot, evidence is evidence whether or not is fits your criteria of what legitimate evidence is.


----------



## Israel (Dec 4, 2017)

There's no knot, no unknot, no flaccid rope (nor reasoning) as to exclude the _only_ indisputably necessary element in all and any of it. Consciousness.

You can't qualify a thing by what you have already disqualified.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 4, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> I agree and disagree
> While I agree there may be individual criteria, available physical evidence ie. no knot, wind, knot, evidence is evidence whether or not is fits your criteria of what legitimate evidence is.



In a multiverse with universes where any and all options happen I'm sure there's one where the knot came into existence with no wind or outside interaction, and another where your lady friend did indeed tie it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 4, 2017)

Israel said:


> There's no knot, no unknot, no flaccid rope (nor reasoning) as to exclude the _only_ indisputably necessary element in all and any of it. Consciousness.
> 
> You can't qualify a thing by what you have already disqualified.



Consciousness or the mental capacity to analyze and interpret for one's self? But even that's tangential to my point of replying; in discussing knots and their formation I would argue that the rope, or lack thereof, is also absolutely vital to the matter. Because if it exists then you're discussing matters of fact, i.e. there is a rope and there is a knot, or knots, in it. Or, there is no rope and the entire discussion is a thought experiment.


----------



## Israel (Dec 4, 2017)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Consciousness or the mental capacity to analyze and interpret for one's self? But even that's tangential to my point of replying; in discussing knots and their formation I would argue that the rope, or lack thereof, is also absolutely vital to the matter. Because if it exists then you're discussing matters of fact, i.e. there is a rope and there is a knot, or knots, in it. Or, there is no rope and the entire discussion is a thought experiment.



"If it exists" is _only_ determined by  consciousness.


I like what this guy wrote a few slots back:



> A knot is a tangle we named.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 4, 2017)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> In a multiverse with universes where any and all options happen I'm sure there's one where the knot came into existence with no wind or outside interaction, and another where your lady friend did indeed tie it.



Most people don't even know what multiverse is.  Most people would either say "the wind did it" or "God did it".


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 5, 2017)

Israel said:


> "If it exists" is _only_ determined by  consciousness.
> 
> 
> I like what this guy wrote a few slots back:



I like that quote, too. 

So when you're unconscious, nothing exists? That's fine if you're speaking only insofar as you're concerned, but I can assure you that knot exists whether you're conscious of it or knot. 



ambush80 said:


> Most people don't even know what multiverse is.  Most people would either say "the wind did it" or "God did it".



You have to qualify your use of most. 20 years ago that kind of generalization may have been possible, but in 2017 I'd wager more people are aware of the multiverse concept, and are familiar with the broad strokes of it like how with infinite universes with infinite possibilities then there's a universe where it's likely that most any possibility is valid, even one where most people are, in fact, unaware of what a multiverse is. I don't think it's this one. Either way, in certain universes in the multiverse there is one where it's possible that the lady friend did hop onto the vehicle to tie that knot.


----------



## Israel (Dec 5, 2017)

I didn't mean to make it sound as though anything is referenced by my own consciousness.


----------



## drippin' rock (Dec 5, 2017)

Israel said:


> "If it exists" is _only_ determined by  consciousness.
> 
> 
> I like what this guy wrote a few slots back:



This guy???  I feel so minimalized. ?


----------



## Israel (Dec 7, 2017)

drippin' rock said:


> This guy???  I feel so minimalized. &#55357;&#56876;



Ha!

It was a great comment. And you are a great commenter.
But seriously, are we in the same chapter if not close to some sort of being on the same page at least in regards to this?

WE assign the significance of a thing appearing a certain way, especially if we have had some experience with it...even to the point, like you say of "naming it".

Is it even possible to consider that a familiarity in "the naming", makes it so we don't even really recognize it anymore for what is, at fundamental level, a tangle. Useful, yes, a form repeatable and learnable? Yes.

I am learning this about things I think I know, especially people, like my wife. She contains worlds, but how often she just appears to me, well, as wife. To see what's there, not some conveniently labeled thing made of a utility that in its convenience, is also blinding.  

I think that Ambush also "touched this" when saying that the words we apply to concepts almost give us the impression that somehow their reality is summed in them...but upon closer inspection, the terms almost become useless, for there's far more to it than we realize in the glossing.

And "some _other_ guy" wisely wrote something like "I think there's a lot more contained in the held concept of omniscience and omnipotence beyond just knowing what's going to happen next"...or something like that.


----------



## WaltL1 (Dec 7, 2017)

Israel said:


> Ha!
> 
> It was a great comment. And you are a great commenter.
> But seriously, are we in the same chapter if not close to some sort of being on the same page at least in regards to this?
> ...


_That_ guy sounds dang near genius.
And handsome too.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Dec 7, 2017)

Israel said:


> I didn't mean to make it sound as though anything is referenced by my own consciousness.



That's not much for clarification, or maybe I'm just not picking up what you're putting down. If it's consciousness in general then it would still apply to you, that statement anyway. 

My stand point is that the knot exists whether we as individuals are conscious of it or not. Not to mix metaphors, but it's like the history of the universe, no matter which story you believe, in that it existed before conscious humans were aware of it. Adam and Eve were subsequent to Creation of the Earth, and homo erectus came long after the Big Bang and the earth cooled, followed by the autotrophs drooling, we created tools and built the pyramids, math, science, history... I think my point is made.


----------



## Israel (Dec 8, 2017)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That's not much for clarification, or maybe I'm just not picking up what you're putting down. If it's consciousness in general then it would still apply to you, that statement anyway.
> 
> My stand point is that the knot exists whether we as individuals are conscious of it or not. Not to mix metaphors, but it's like the history of the universe, no matter which story you believe, in that it existed before conscious humans were aware of it. Adam and Eve were subsequent to Creation of the Earth, and homo erectus came long after the Big Bang and the earth cooled, followed by the autotrophs drooling, we created tools and built the pyramids, math, science, history... I think my point is made.




LOL. 

Not laughing _at you_, but _with you_...

That's a marvelous description of stuff...first this, then this, then this...then...

But, you and I are stuck together...in quite greater measure than maybe even we know. (Me at least, as to the unknowing part) And I mean "stuck" in the sense of what gets introduced into my consciousness has now some compelling to "deal" with it...(it may be seeking to understand/ a sense it is "best" jettisoned {Claudia in the mini skirt...and my wife's name is _not _Claudia}/ that scuffling in the woods...is it a deer? person? just a squirrel...better leave the safety on and WAIT)  So many things "enter" my consciousness! What to do with...or about each...or any?



When you were writing...was what was "happening inside you" similar at all to what was happening in me, as I read? Did you kinda see the "big bang" in your mind...some kinda framing of what I think they call (am I wrong in this term...a 'singularity"?) like everything of the universe contracted to a point...and BOOM! All this stuff thrown out in a moment...then the stars are there as fragments from this spoonful of "everything" expanding...eons eons eons...planets forming and cooling...eons eons eons, life on at least one, "drooling", eons, then standing, then finally composing Hamlet, Symphony No. 40 in g minor, A Brief History of Time, E=MC2...and all along the way I had to "insert" my consciousness as though I am watching...there ...beholding...seeing Mozart, Einstein, Shakespeare, drooling proto hominids...a very BIG explosion!
If I see it, if I can "put" my consciousness there, I tend to believe it.

But I am stuck. Oh, how I am stuck!...and it is in all and every way (at least to me and for me, perfect!)


Because One has told my "Go ahead, put your consciousness here...in everything you can't see...believe...and behold what happens!" Look, I can't explain the mechanics of that at all, of how in me (least likely to all my measurements) He attained a place of primacy, how I was brought to do it. I could try to talk about things "I have read" that might endorse it, by other men...but I also know that even in their writings they equally are stuck trying to approach what they say:

Who only hath immortality, _dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto;_ whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

You could ask..."how can you believe that?" I would say "how can I not believe what I believe?"
For if, as I follow what kinda looks like a trail in your post...somewhere on that eons of the timeline, man developed "consciousness"...(I would be compelled to say...somewhere _a thing_ gave it to another)...but either way...if man "developed it" and it is now in man as part and parcel to "every man"...then every man is no more nor less free than any other to kinda "put it" where he does. I have no compulsion over anyone...anymore than I do...over myself to "decide" where consciousness "should go"...at least if it is only my own. How can I direct...the very thing...that directs me? No matter how we argue "its" origin?

There are things in this that would, I think, be way to lengthy to explore (as my friend Bullet often reminds me), here...I would appear probably, very much as I am...a tedious man. But suffice it to say that for me, long before I began to see (what is to me) the perfect sense of Jesus Christ, he appeared as friend..."inserting" something by his friendliness that is so far beyond my own understanding...at this point further words are useless.


----------



## atlashunter (Dec 8, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Hmmm...
> "Like best" or "based on evidence"?
> 1. unknotted rope in back of truck
> 2. wind whipping around in back of moving truck
> ...



Odds are far greater it was Sandra Bullock. At least she is known to exist.


----------



## Israel (Dec 8, 2017)

atlashunter said:


> Odds are far greater it was Sandra Bullock. At least she is known to exist.



Known...to exist. yeah.


----------

