The Peckish Synapse

Grumpy Bear · January 22

4 hours ago, customboss said:

Here’s the irony of it all. API promises us backward compatibility right?

Right up there with

1.) I love you

2.) I'm from the IRS and here to help

3.) Check is in the mail

Run an SP oil in a 427 Tunnel Port Ford and let me know how that works out. :crackup:

Grumpy Bear · January 22

4 hours ago, KARNUT said:

After the fun times I’ve had with some manufacturers experimenting early on. I stick with vehicles that are not so sensitive that I have to worry so much about being sold a bill of goods. That’s been pretty effective for me so far.

Problem is bother that they are ALL joining in the act. Some sad stuff right there.

Edited January 22 by Grumpy Bear

customboss · January 22

10 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Problem is bother that they are ALL joining in the act. Some sad stuff right there.

Real R&D has slowed significantly since WWII. WHY?

The former USGOV fuinding of land grant universities R&D that ended as soon as the republicans and some democrats alike saw a way to save $$. That burden was put on business. Business does NOT INNOVATE. Entrepreneurs do. Once an Entrepreneur founds a unique helpful product or technology it becomes marketable. If it’s not it never becomes a profitable business.
MOST military or technologies that aren’t profitable Don’t GET ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT UNLESS THE USGOV SEES A COMMON NEED. Those programs are what developed technologies we rely on now. Aside from coding, computers, and AI that make $$ on their own THERE HAS BEEN LITTLE TO NOTHING DONE ON ADVANCED LUBRICANT, FILTRATION, and materials technologies since WWII.

Grumpy Bear · January 22

On 1/22/2025 at 10:10 AM, customboss said:

Real R&D has slowed significantly since WWII. WHY?

The former USGOV fuinding of land grant universities R&D that ended as soon as the republicans and some democrats alike saw a way to save $$. That burden was put on business. Business does NOT INNOVATE. Entrepreneurs do. Once an Entrepreneur founds a unique helpful product or technology it becomes marketable. If it’s not it never becomes a profitable business.
MOST military or technologies that aren’t profitable Don’t GET ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT UNLESS THE USGOV SEES A COMMON NEED. Those programs are what developed technologies we rely on now. Aside from coding, computers, and AI that make $$ on their own THERE HAS BEEN LITTLE TO NOTHING DONE ON ADVANCED LUBRICANT, FILTRATION, and materials technologies since WWII.

Both dead on. Innovate? No. Lie cheat and manipulate...oh yea.

Todays business driven R&D is "Consumer Failure Mode Response" driven by chasing "Profit Margin" and fueled by "Focus Groups" and "Review Likes". Cooperate Moto:

If it makes more money

AND

the public is wiling to bear it

AND

the Government approves it........

It's progress!!

If it were not for the military need we would not have standardization nor interchangeability.

I'd rather have a Christ-Craft than a Bass-Master. :idiot:

The GM 3800 is likely that last successful true engineering R&D project GM ever did. :rolleyes:

Edited January 25 by Grumpy Bear

truckguy82 · January 25

On 5/28/2019 at 8:32 AM, Grumpy Bear said:

The Peckish Synapse

The truth is a hard thing to find and why, I suppose, it intrigues me. Often confused with facts. Considered opinion by some. Rarely defended and often criticized. But truth, it has power.

I find truth in three areas fairly easy to find; God, math and physics. That is if you go to the source and not the person manipulating them. As the last two are the result of the first….I find ‘it’ reliable. Who can question God?

Isaac Newton is sitting under a tree one day and an apple falls to the ground. He ponders this event and today we see the result of the meditation as the three laws of motion. Does that mean Newton invented Motion Law?

No. It had always existed. Isaac was just the first to understand it well enough to explain it. How? Was God ignorant of that law? Hardly. He created it. So the source is faithful.

Albert Einstein is contemplating a train and the perspectives of various observers. That meditation produced several Theories of Relativity. Theories solid enough to be used to send men to the moon. How?

Galilei Galileo drops two dissimilar balls off a famous leaning tower. Gravity calculations results from his meditation. Did he invent gravity? We still use those equations. Your ECU/PCM can’t operate without them. How?

The thing that connects God’s physical laws to the study of Physics is Math. That is how! That is in explaining the workings of the natural world. Data is our friend. But only if you understand its significance and, and it’s a big AND, you don’t bend the math to suit your will. Back to Galileo and scientific method.

This the case the first thing people who hate the truth attack is the math. More precisely the measurement. Then the method and then….they just don’t want an answer.

Well I do and am quite content not to use the abstract to muddy the definite to irrelevance. That said I’m not oblivious to it either.

What does that mean? Means I’m not going to apply a rule of measurement intended for measurements in the field of quantum mechanics to cast a doubt about the accuracy of a GPS measured mile in calibrating my odometer. But I also see the need for a large enough sample size to relegate any unintended error in measurement to a decimal so small that it matters not. All I’m looking for is a ‘process capable’ value that can be used to compare one apple to another.

Data will tell the story, not the story teller.

I don’t understand how you can believe in god, science, and math. God is a belief in magic, science is the refusal of magic and seeking the truth.

Having faith is the inverse of science. In science there are only answers with statistical probability. You cannot believe in god and science at the same time because there is no data to support the existence or god.

Grumpy Bear · January 25

12 minutes ago, truckguy82 said:

I don’t understand how you can believe in god, science, and math. God is a belief in magic, science is the refusal of magic and seeking the truth.

Having faith is the inverse of science. In science there are only answers with statistical probability. You cannot believe in god and science at the same time because there is no data to support the existence or god.

And I don't understand how anyone who calls themselves a scientist cannot believe in God. Science affirms his existents.

Entropy. Science does not support things happening by chance.

Grumpy Bear · January 25

9 hours ago, truckguy82 said:

I don’t understand how you can believe in god, science, and math. God is a belief in magic, science is the refusal of magic and seeking the truth.

Having faith is the inverse of science. In science there are only answers with statistical probability. You cannot believe in god and science at the same time because there is no data to support the existence or god.

@truckguy82 I believe in the human ability to have a rational thought. I'm sure you do as well. Can a thought be measured? Take a tape measure to it or weight one on a scale? Oh science can take pictures of a thoughts impact on the brain just like a tree can show you the wind; but the tree bending to the winds will is not the wind and the glow of an MRI or PET scan is not a thought. Yet, it exist apart from the 'data'. A thought has no mass. Neither does God. A spirit creature.

An ancient book has this to say on the subject:

"Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God." A very rational thought.

There are literally millions of examples of "Intelligent Design" in our visible world. The fact we woke this morning is but one.

Edited January 25 by Grumpy Bear

Grumpy Bear · January 25

.

Edited January 25 by Grumpy Bear

truckguy82 · January 25

7 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

@truckguy82 I believe in the human ability to have a rational thought. I'm sure you do as well. Can a thought be measured? Take a tape measure to it or weight one on a scale? Oh science can take pictures of a thoughts impact on the brain just like a tree can show you the wind; but the tree bending to the winds will is not the wind and the glow of an MRI or PET scan is not a thought. Yet, it exist apart from the 'data'. A thought has no mass. Neither does God. A spirit creature.

An ancient book has this to say on the subject:

"Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God." A very rational thought.

There are literally millions of examples of "Intelligent Design" in our visible world. The fact we woke this morning is but one.

Yes but there is millions of pieces of data to support the fact that we evolved over billions of years from single celled organisms. Random mutations affects survival. Are we 100% sure of exactly how it happened at every step, no….but the evidence overwhelming supports evolution is responsible for it all. We can watch evolution happen quickly with living things that reproduce rapidly, an example would be bacteria that evolves a resistance to medicine.

I just don’t see how one could default to intelligent design for what we don’t fully understand yet.

Data stored on a hard drive does not have mass either. I can write a word with my finger in the sand, and data would be created without a change in mass.

The human brain is essentially the most complex thing in the universe that we know of. Much like why the god of thunder was envisioned, just because we don’t fully understand it, does not create a statistical probability that it was designed by a higher power.

I mean anything is possible. It could be possible aliens visited here a million years ago and genetically modified an animal so that it would evolve into an advanced species. Statistical odds on that are quite low. Which sort of goes back to the point that a belief in science is a belief in statistical probability, not absolutes. So in order to “believe” that a higher power is the most probable explanation, one would have to dismiss scientific reasoning.

It is actually possible that a quantum hotdog will spontaneously appear in your hands tomorrow at 5:03pm, the odds are maybe 1:10^150,000,000 that will happen, so I don’t “believe” that will happen. The odds of you being an million year old AI robot posting on this forum through a worm whole from another universe is far greater than the odds of that quantum hotdog appearing in your hands tomorrow.

I personally think it’s ok to believe in a higher power for the sake of emotions. I tried it once when I thought something bad was going to happen, and it definitely helped me. I wouldn’t dare think less of someone if they did, but….I do think it’s a dismissal of science and math to do so.

Edited January 25 by truckguy82

Grumpy Bear · January 27

On 1/25/2025 at 1:57 PM, truckguy82 said:

It is actually possible that a quantum hotdog will spontaneously appear in your hands tomorrow at 5:03pm, the odds are maybe 1:10^150,000,000 that will happen, so I don’t “believe” that will happen.

So even you don't believe it and yet you do? I can work with that....

Takes around few dozen amino acids to form a functioning cell. So the odds of spontaneous life you quote out of thin air needs to happen not once but 20 plus times making the odds what? IMPOSSIBLE. Science cannot not site a single verifiable example of spontaneous life.

If I take every part of a clock and put them all in a bag and shake that bag for eternity a clock will not assemble itself. Then we are left with questions like, Where did those parts come from? Who designed them, chance? Where did the raw materials come from? Alloys? Refinement? What power is shaking the bag.

Life is vastly more complicated than a clock and it's existence demands a designer. The ability to create the color in a butterfly's wings is immeasurably/infinitely more difficult than a clock. So a belief in Evolution requires saying that lower orders cannot self create but the most complex things we know can. Does that seem rational to you?

On 1/25/2025 at 1:57 PM, truckguy82 said:

but the evidence overwhelming supports evolution is responsible for it all.

Actually, not even close. It's why it's called the "THEORY" of evolution and not the 'fact' of evolution.

Evolution violates Entropy.

A very basic scientific principle. A higher order can not come from a lower order. Just like cold can't become hot but hot becomes cold. Our very existence depends on these immutable truths.

On 1/25/2025 at 1:57 PM, truckguy82 said:

The human brain is essentially the most complex thing in the universe that we know of. Much like why the god of thunder was envisioned, just because we don’t fully understand it, does not create a statistical probability that it was designed by a higher power.

I gave an example of a thing you fully believe in that you can not MEASURE. Ergo your belief does not hinge on science but on a need for a rational explanation for your existence. The most rational explanation is an Intelligent Designer and Creator.

Romans 1:19,20 offers this irrefutable logic....

".....because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable."

Isaiah 40:26 makes this observation:

“Lift up your eyes to heaven and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who brings out their army by number; He calls them all by name. Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power, Not one of them is missing."

The very first verse of the Bible tells us how we got here in the exact amount of detail our mind can handle.

asilverblazer · January 28

On 1/27/2025 at 8:26 AM, Grumpy Bear said:

Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power

Destruction of matter creates energy... creation of matter requires? Energy, where did the energy required to create all know matter in the universe come from?

Even if you accept evolution...

Where did the matter come from?

Where did the energy come from?

Who started the 'big bang'?

What started the 'big bang'?

Who wrote the laws of physics?

Why do we appreciate such abstract ideas as love, art, justice, empathy?

If we accept mutations as a means for evolution, mutations are accidents, and rarely will they produce something superior to what they came from, and even if they did, how many accidents would have to happen to create a different kind of creature that is successfully better? If these accidents and mutations were so common place, how many of them failed? What is the success vs. failure rate of these mutations? All the observed mutations we have seen have been failures, so we could assume the failure rate is likely higher than a successful mutation. How would a species survive beyond a few generations trying to overcome the failure rate. To rely on accidents to produce such complex proccesses as life and its ability to procreate itself is statisically impossible. Science all ready aknowledges the vast improbabilites involved and aknowledges all those as 'statisically impossible'.

Further, we have observed 'kinds' of animals for thousands of years, we haven't seen any evolve to something different. We HAVE observed various adaptations through environmental factors and selective breeding; but thus far nothing new is produced. The vast quantity of different types of dogs are an example, wolves, coyotes, retrievers, terriers, etc... we can even breed them together and get different hybrids and 'breeds' but they still remain dogs "according to their kind". Even pushing it further with lion/tiger crosses and zebra/donkey crossing ends up creating sterile animals that aren't capable of reproduction.

Where are all the missing cross breed animals in the fossil record?

Why do animals 'suddenly' appear in the fossil record and coincidentally in the same order as described in the Genesis account before humans even knew what a fossil was? What are the odds of guessing that correctly?

How do animals learn to migrate? Where do animals get instincts from?

We still haven't seen in the observable universe another habitable planet that can support life like our Earth can. With all its own independent chance processes that self rejuvenate to support life. Plate tectonics, water cycle, tides, seasons, ocean currents, atmosperic currents, a molten core of iron to produce a magnetic shield from radiation.

All of the above happening on the same planet, at the right time with right ingredients... again statisically impossible.

I believe in science, but it does not provide any answers for any of the above.

Grumpy Bear · January 29

On 1/27/2025 at 8:26 AM, Grumpy Bear said:

Because of his vast dynamic energy and his awe-inspiring power,

A being that has always been and will always be is hard on the human mind but even we have a concept of INFINITY. Number theory. Infinite sets. No smallest number, no largest number. Time has not beginning nor does it have and end.

5 hours ago, asilverblazer said:

Destruction of matter creates energy... creation of matter requires? Energy, where did the energy required to create all know matter in the universe come from?

We have two choices and only two. Either "Something" has always been OR, before something, nothing was. Since your statement acknowledges that something cannot come from nothing, then something has always been.

Psalm 90:2 reads:

"Before the mountains were born Or you brought forth the earth and the productive land, From everlasting to everlasting, you are God."

As something has always been and as Romans 1:19,20 quoted earlier notes ".....For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made,..." Or his creation.

That is, this something that has always been is "Intelligent", a spirit person. His 'qualities' are seen in his creation. Wisdom, Power, Justice, Wisdom.

It is also a fact that one can, and many do, CHOSE not to believe or if they do, not place faith in him. 2 Thessalonians 3:2 makes this point:

".....for faith is not a possession of all people."

asilverblazer · January 29

12 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

His 'qualities' are seen in his creation. LOVE, Power, Justice, Wisdom.

Grumpy Bear · January 30

12 hours ago, asilverblazer said:

On 1/28/2025 at 9:11 PM, Grumpy Bear said:

His 'qualities' are seen in his creation. LOVE, Power, Justice, Wisdom.

Interesting observation sir. 1 John 4:8 "Whoever does not love has not come to know God, because God is love."

I always found this fascinating. God is powerful. He is just. He is all wise but when it comes to love he is its personification. Doesn't say he has love or even he is loving. Says he IS love.

asilverblazer · January 30

16 hours ago, Grumpy Bear said:

Interesting observation sir. 1 John 4:8 "Whoever does not love has not come to know God, because God is love."

I always found this fascinating. God is powerful. He is just. He is all wise but when it comes to love he is its personification. Doesn't say he has love or even he is loving. Says he IS love.

Further... His four principle or main qualities are symbolized by his attending cherubs at Rev. 4:6-8 compare also to Eze. 1:10

A lion symbolizes his courageous justice (2 Sam. 17:10, Prov. 28:1, Deut. 32:4, Psalms 89:14)

A bull his power (Prov. 14:4, Job 39:9-11)

An eagles far-sighted wisdom (Job 39:29)

A man - love (Gen 1:26-28, Matt. 22:36-40, 1 John 4:8 - again)