The Theory of Evolution.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

“if you do warn the wicked man to turn from his ways and he does not do so, he will die for his sin, but you will have saved yourself” (Ezekiel 33:9).

Is that physics? Or mathematics?

Right, gloss right over all of the points that I've submitted and pretend that my conclusion is the support.

A parting bait-and-switch fallacy. You're particularly persistent with that one.

I'll pray for you viole, but I don't think we're going to get anywhere in this discussion so I won't be responding to you anymore here.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

viole, you're the one who brought up the other mathematicians, and the onus was on you to provide which ones.

Did you lose track of that, or is this some kind of clumsy attempt to turn the responsibility of your blunders back on me?

You're failing to address me, is actually the problem.

You coast over each and every point that you fail to address, constantly pursuing one that you hope will have purchase. The problem here is that you're failing entirely to assess your own handling of the concepts.

Did you know that there are mathematicians who someone actually hired to do math who disagree with you? If your handling of the principles of mathematics is as loose and disjointed as you application of practical logic could I suggest that it may be in your best interests to take up your ideas with one of them?

It's always possible they'll be able to explain the particulars of that field to you in a way that will shed some light on the challenges you're facing in your job search.

Again, which steps of the proof are questionable? You keep on dodging the question with lengthy irrelevant replies which do not get to the point.

I am really willing to help. It is not difficult really, you just need to find periodic solution on the manifold defined in phase space.

The conclusion is inescapable, unless you find a flaw in the proof.

viole, you actually have to read my responses. I addressed myriad points throughout with specific addresses to each and every point you made. The only way you could have missed it is by just skipping right over it - that's not my fault and we're having a lengthy discussion.

I'm not going to just keep repeating myself until I spin it in such a way that you can be bothered to read and deign to address.

And furthermore, you're not even putting together a deductive syllogism. Your conclusions are not inescapable, because you haven't set them up that way. You can't just mimic the language of practical logic, you have to be able to apply the principles to set up an inescapable conclusion.

The answers are in there. If you take the time to actually read what I wrote and respond to that, then we can pick the discussion back up.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

You are still not focused on the subject. You do not need to repeat yourself. Just focus on this issue, please.

viole, you can't just lob my observations about what you're doing here back towards me.

The subject that you're referring to here is off the topic of the thread, I do need to repeat myself because you're not listening, and I've demonstrated how you're having trouble staying focused on the issue by pointing out when and how you get distracted. This is the 'I know you are but what am I' fallacy you're attempting to employ here.

We are not talking about high school syllogisms here.

Here's exactly the problem. You think you can reason without even getting a handle on high-school level syllogisms. If you can't even get a handle on basic logic, you're in no position to handle complex concepts: "Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much" (Luke 16:10).

We are talking about Poincare's recurrence Theorem which proves that states in closed (adiabatic) systems will eventually return to their original state. The theorem has different demonstrations, but the easiest one addresses, as I said, closed orbits in phase space. I am ready to discuss every single step of the demonstration and all possible flaws, if any.

We could go through this and first address the fact that there is no symmetry (as I've already submitted points on that you've failed to address), then approach your assertion that when heat death occurs time could just as readily turn backwards and that heat could therefore be reintroduced as a result of some collision and in doing so we could see that the deductive reasoning you're using to support your conclusions that heat death equals the arbitrary reversal of time are non sequitur, and therefore unreasonable fiction, but you want to approach this with the attitude of "forget cause and effect" and "We are not talking about high school syllogisms here", by which you're admitting that you can make your reasoning work if only we sacrifice empiricism and logic. We can't examine the possible flaws if at the outset you want to do away with the method of examining possible flaws.

You reject the immaterial, and it’s no wonder therefore that you have no respect for such immaterial considerations such as the fundamentals of practical logic, but I submit to you that anything you accept at their expense is simply delusion, and I can offer you nothing in that vein.

I’m not trying to dismiss you, but you’re restricting any ability I have of helping you, and as far as you helping me I’m not in the market to accept any beliefs in which I’d have to suspend even my handle on high school level practical logic in order to entertain.

[Guest]

You are still not focused on the subject. You do not need to repeat yourself. Just focus on this issue, please.

viole, you can't just lob my observations about what you're doing here back towards me.

The subject that you're referring to here is off the topic of the thread, I do need to repeat myself because you're not listening, and I've demonstrated how you're having trouble staying focused on the issue by pointing out when and how you get distracted. This is the 'I know you are but what am I' fallacy you're attempting to employ here.

We are not talking about high school syllogisms here.

Here's exactly the problem. You think you can reason without even getting a handle on high-school level syllogisms. If you can't even get a handle on basic logic, you're in no position to handle complex concepts: "Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much" (Luke 16:10).

We are talking about Poincare's recurrence Theorem which proves that states in closed (adiabatic) systems will eventually return to their original state. The theorem has different demonstrations, but the easiest one addresses, as I said, closed orbits in phase space. I am ready to discuss every single step of the demonstration and all possible flaws, if any.

We could go through this and first address the fact that there is no symmetry (as I've already submitted points on that you've failed to address), then approach your assertion that when heat death occurs time could just as readily turn backwards and that heat could therefore be reintroduced as a result of some collision and in doing so we could see that the deductive reasoning you're using to support your conclusions that heat death equals the arbitrary reversal of time are non sequitur, and therefore unreasonable fiction, but you want to approach this with the attitude of "forget cause and effect" and "We are not talking about high school syllogisms here", by which you're admitting that you can make your reasoning work if only we sacrifice empiricism and logic. We can't examine the possible flaws if at the outset you want to do away with the method of examining possible flaws.

You reject the immaterial, and it's no wonder therefore that you have no respect for such immaterial considerations such as the fundamentals of practical logic, but I submit to you that anything you accept at their expense is simply delusion, and I can offer you nothing in that vein.

I'm not trying to dismiss you, but you're restricting any ability I have of helping you, and as far as you helping me I'm not in the market to accept any beliefs in which I'd have to suspend even my handle on high school level practical logic in order to entertain.

Even Greater Than Man

Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me.

I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the LORD of hosts. Isaiah 45:11-13

Is The Awesome Grace Of God

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 3:17-18

Toward Whosoever Will Believe And Will Be Blessed

[Isaiah 6:8]

this thread is way off the original topic. So I am closing it now.