One bang one process.

Evolution.

Discussions on astrology, homeopathy and superstition etc.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: One bang one process.

#2781  Postby Spearthrower » Aug 06, 2022 9:39 am

pfrankinstein wrote:Is there had been only one Gallipoli island .... nothing....


You're confused as usual.

It's the Galápagos Islands, not Gallipoli, which is in Turkey.


pfrankinstein wrote:My interest about the subject wains. Proven by by my logic.


Literally no one in the world believes you know your arse from your elbow when it comes to anything at all about the topic, and that extends to logic too.

Incidentally, this again underscores how poorly informed you are about science - even teenagers know this. Science doesn't operate by 'proving things with logic'. We've all educated you about this many times Paul - to do science, you need evidence.



pfrankinstein wrote:I'm curious about AI and the programming of art/ music / colour programming.


It is exciting to think just how many topics you know nothing about but can Live Action Roleplay being an expert in.

Considering it took you nearly 2 decade to still not have a fucking clue in the slightest about evolution, I have no doubt that the members of AI and programming fora are in for an absolute treat of abject ignorance mixed with hubris.


pfrankinstein wrote:So, thriller EVOLUTION process or speciation ... yawn?


If you were even able to write sentences that are coherent, you might have a chance one day to distinguish your rectum from your coccyx from your ulna.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 31306
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#2782  Postby Spearthrower » Aug 06, 2022 9:41 am

Cito di Pense wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:

How will history record you?



It won't Paul, just like it won't record you.


I mean, how dimly arrogant does one have to be to go anonymously into an internet chat and ask baldly how history will record the anonymous people one encounters? I mean, this guy obviously wishes that he'd wandered into an august scientific conference.



And that people were sympathetic enough not to have him kicked straight back out again.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 31306
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#2783  Postby fluttermoth » Aug 06, 2022 9:48 am

Spearthrower wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:Is there had been only one Gallipoli island .... nothing....


You're confused as usual.

It's the Galápagos Islands, not Gallipoli, which is in Turkey.





:rofl:

OMG, that's nearly as good as the flerf reading the Wiki for the wrong Foucault, brilliant :lol:
User avatar
fluttermoth
 
Posts: 275
Age: 52
Female

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#2784  Postby Spearthrower » Aug 06, 2022 9:55 am

fluttermoth wrote:
:rofl:

OMG, that's nearly as good as the flerf reading the Wiki for the wrong Foucault, brilliant :lol:



Maybe Paul's also interested in revising the topic of geography with his modus operandi of making up deranged and incoherent bullshit and insisting other people consider it divinely mandated truth. In Paul's special geography, maybe South America IS in Europe?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 31306
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#2785  Postby BWE » Aug 06, 2022 7:07 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
BWE wrote:Meh. Complex adaptive systems evolve toward greater complexity. Biological evolution is not a closed system so there is no reason to separate it. Paul might be making a pedestrian point



That as may be, there is a very good reason to separate biological evolution from other forms of change over time though, because the change occurring isn't a simple consequence of natural forces acting on the system, but from internal factors implicit to the system itself; the relationship between genome and phenome.

All adaptive systems are equally a set of complex relationships between their internal structure and their external environment. What only nominally sets life apart from solar systems is the scale of autopoeiesis. New solar systems are born from old solar systems and there is something fundamentally in tension regarding our framing of the second law. It requires a God's eye view from outside the system. Just because we can see systems at our scales of perceptions we make tremendous assumptions at scales beyond the reach of our models. The second law clearly expresses something deep about our environment but, IMO, it does not quite justify our belief that it is the governing law. Complex systems all evolve towards greater complexity. That is also a law and again IMO should be considered as equal to the 2nd law or at least inseparable from it. We are only just beginning to understand what complex adaptive systems even are but it is saf e to at least say that from our perspective there are no closed systems.
Solar systems evolve towards a discrete equilibrium of mass, inertia, temperature etc. (plug in the exact same values into multiple solar systems and they end up the exact same shape), but organisms evolve multifariously, not towards anything but just because of recombination, then the environment acts upon that assortment of change retaining or removing it. These amount to very different types of system.

Even were we to treat the entire universe as a massively complex adaptive system, it still wouldn't amount to any validation that biological evolution began with the Big Bang though, else why even consider the system 'adaptive' if it can't produce new effects not present in past states?

Biological evolution begins at x point is an odd claim in many ways. Autopoeietic (self generating)systems appear to be a fundamental character of existence- the boundary or phase transition at the edge of chaos. On Earth, biological evolution began with autocatalytic sets. Such sets are ubiquitous and inevitable -a law of nature maybe even- at the boundary between equilibrium and chaos and they are not a material law but rather a law of connection. They generalize as information. So I'm not really opposed to what I imagine Paul might be possibly getting at, and i do think there is a profound spect to the general conceptual space of the idea, although what he is actually trying to say is way too unclear to assume my guesses about it are close to his intended meaning.


As has been noted before, the claims Paul makes are either false and absurd, or just banal. Before there was a universe, nothing changed.... change began at the moment the universe began... therefore all change originates with the Big Bang :- it's both false and banal in equal measure.

In summary, before is outside the model so there is no information. Considering life as material and so modeling it according to force, mass, and velocity is, again imo, very much a disservice to the discoveries of the last half century in complexity.
User avatar
BWE
 
Posts: 2674

Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#2786  Postby BWE » Aug 06, 2022 7:50 pm

I should add, considering it as an expression best understood using a material model rather than a connection based model... the question of which model is ontologically correct I leave to others with different inclinations than mine
User avatar
BWE
 
Posts: 2674

Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#2787  Postby Spearthrower » Aug 06, 2022 8:25 pm

BWE wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
BWE wrote:Meh. Complex adaptive systems evolve toward greater complexity. Biological evolution is not a closed system so there is no reason to separate it. Paul might be making a pedestrian point



That as may be, there is a very good reason to separate biological evolution from other forms of change over time though, because the change occurring isn't a simple consequence of natural forces acting on the system, but from internal factors implicit to the system itself; the relationship between genome and phenome.


All adaptive systems are equally a set of complex relationships between their internal structure and their external environment.


I don't disagree with much of what you're saying, but I think the primary characteristic of biological evolution has no apparent facsimile elsewhere in the universe apart from things we've made specifically to mimic the manner in which evolution produces change.


BWE wrote: What only nominally sets life apart from solar systems is the scale of autopoeiesis. New solar systems are born from old solar systems and there is something fundamentally in tension regarding our framing of the second law. It requires a God's eye view from outside the system.


In terms of knowing where the bounds are - where a system begins and ends? An inductive problem which I think is always worth maintaining caution about across many, if not most topics - but science is pretty good at sniffing out inductive flaws, assuming of course we have relevant data.

Incidentally, I do also very much concur that biological evolution, and life itself is a product of the 2nd law, and even more reductively, proton gradients. On the other hand, I am also cautious about seeking explanation of a phenomenon through regression and reductionism.

I also am leery of metaphor, for example the idea that solar systems are 'born' - they're not, of course. They are only metaphorically born - the process isn't anything like birth, the biological phenomenon. In actual terms a solar system's formation is like taking a bowl of sugar, flour, assorted dried fruits, stirring it and saying 'the cake has been conceived' - really, it's just the conglomeration of matter contained in the bowl/gravity, not any specific characteristics of that matter or of its configuration, and nothing characteristic to that matter impacts a future solar system's 'success' in whatever terms that may be. Matter simply gonna clump - if there's enough, it's going to overcome electrostatic repulsion and begin fusion, eventually burning out its fuel, spitting the matter out and if there's enough matter that then clumps, another solar system may be 'born'. It's not even clear why more iterations of that matter undergoing gravitational attraction holds any specific value - there's no natural 'reward'.

None of this is remotely analogous to how biology works, or what's happening on any level from DNA through to organism. It's not at all similar to how the specific configurations of genes allow resultant specific forms to maintain cohesion across multiple generations, to succeed or fail to exist. There's no mapping between the specific configuration of matter internal to the solar system and its continuing existence. This is starkly different to biology, to the environmental stage on which biology plays out.


BWE wrote:Just because we can see systems at our scales of perceptions we make tremendous assumptions at scales beyond the reach of our models. The second law clearly expresses something deep about our environment but, IMO, it does not quite justify our belief that it is the governing law.


I'm with you so far, although I'd like to hear more of what you mean regarding the status of the 2nd law.


BWE wrote:Complex systems all evolve towards greater complexity. That is also a law and again IMO should be considered as equal to the 2nd law or at least inseparable from it.


My natural skepticism asserts itself here and wonders... all of them? Every single one? But surely many evolve towards greater simplicity too when resources are locked down and unavailable, where the system achieves a high degree of equilibrium, it becomes less complex, or so it would seem to me. I could imagine that many or most complex systems, by the nature of them being comprised of multiple and varied interactions would therefore include the possibility of interactions occurring between those interactions, thus ratcheting up an entirely novel state or configuration. But I am not sure that this stands well as a definite description of all complex systems.


BWE wrote:We are only just beginning to understand what complex adaptive systems even are but it is saf e to at least say that from our perspective there are no closed systems.


I would suggest that we could very well consider the universe itself a closed system - it certainly helps to erect that as an axiom, else we'd be right up shit creek if the workings of the universe can be affected by things external to the universe which we can never hope to observe or perceive.

I think it may well also be fair to conceive of many galaxies as being closed systems - those isolated from their fellows by thousands of light years - acknowledging that light from outside does penetrate their system, but it has sufficiently minimal impact I think it can be safely disregarded.

I think we can also employ the concept of a closed system as a means of exploring its configuration - perform the spherical cows in a vacuum routine because it can still offer a lot of value, even while acknowledging that it remains an incomplete or erroneous model.


BWE wrote:
Solar systems evolve towards a discrete equilibrium of mass, inertia, temperature etc. (plug in the exact same values into multiple solar systems and they end up the exact same shape), but organisms evolve multifariously, not towards anything but just because of recombination, then the environment acts upon that assortment of change retaining or removing it. These amount to very different types of system.

Even were we to treat the entire universe as a massively complex adaptive system, it still wouldn't amount to any validation that biological evolution began with the Big Bang though, else why even consider the system 'adaptive' if it can't produce new effects not present in past states?


Biological evolution begins at x point is an odd claim in many ways.


I would say it's fairly easy.

Are there any conglomerations of matter in which the internal configuration of matter maps to its form, where that form undergoes differential survival based on its morphology, and that these configurations of matter are heritable?

No? Then there is no biological evolution.
Yes? Then there is biological evolution.

From the evidence we have, there was a period in which no such forms existed, but later such forms existed, ergo biological evolution began at some point.

I don't think you're suggesting that biological evolution was hanging around in Platonic space waiting for the right conglomeration of matter to arise, so all we're really saying is that there's a range of things that can happen in the universe, one of which is biological evolution, but had such conglomerations of matter never arisen, then biological evolution would not be a part of this universe.


BWE wrote: Autopoeietic (self generating)systems appear to be a fundamental character of existence- the boundary or phase transition at the edge of chaos. On Earth, biological evolution began with autocatalytic sets. Such sets are ubiquitous and inevitable -a law of nature maybe even- at the boundary between equilibrium and chaos and they are not a material law but rather a law of connection. They generalize as information. So I'm not really opposed to what I imagine Paul might be possibly getting at, and i do think there is a profound spect to the general conceptual space of the idea, although what he is actually trying to say is way too unclear to assume my guesses about it are close to his intended meaning.


Similarly, I am not opposed to what you are saying, nor specifically to what Paul's saying - but in his case, what it amounts to is utterly banal and wrong. He's making hay out of the idea that biological evolution existed as a possibility in the universe from the initial inflation, because how could it otherwise exist? This is just wrong. In the initial inflation of the universe, there was no biological evolution - there was no biology - there wasn't even the precursor building blocks to biology. There was also nothing analogous to biological evolution happening in the distribution of matter, the expansion of space, the interactions of gravity on atoms - none of this is at all relevant or related to the working of biological evolution.


BWE wrote:
In summary, before is outside the model so there is no information.


Of course I agree, but again, we can just accept for simplicity's sake the idealized and probably false notion that prior to the universe there was this nothing of no time and no space in which nothing happened so nothing changed, then the universe expanded thus initiating change. Even in that idealized model, it's banal to then wave at something that exists in the universe now, and say that it therefore originated with the initial expansion of the universe ala Paul's primary argument.


BWE wrote:Considering life as material and so modeling it according to force, mass, and velocity is, again imo, very much a disservice to the discoveries of the last half century in complexity.


This I am very unclear about. How else should we consider life? Immaterial? :scratch:

I'm not sure how this would amount to a disservice to any scientific field?

Even if we were to employ the metaphor of information, of life as information, and treat is accordingly... we'd still be obliged to recognize that the information is intimately constrained and particular to the material forcy-massy-movey bits, not the other way round.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 31306
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#2788  Postby Spearthrower » Aug 06, 2022 8:45 pm

BWE wrote:I should add, considering it as an expression best understood using a material model rather than a connection based model... the question of which model is ontologically correct I leave to others with different inclinations than mine


My approach with such ideas is that you can simply don whichever's relevant; just don't get too emotionally attached to any ontology as that tends to be unhealthy! :)
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 31306
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#2789  Postby BWE » Aug 07, 2022 3:48 am

There's a lot of background in what I'm getting at and it may not be worth pursuing using a phone to converse.
I hoped to find a decent video on the topic and didn't but this one at least gets at the basic idea
https://youtu.be/XcB_7jv98uE

The missing part is how many connections a system needs to produce organized behavior. Any system within the right range will produce emergent behavior that always moves towards greater complexity.

This page has an applet you can play with
https://math.hws.edu/xJava/CA/EdgeOfChaos.html

I will try to revisit this soon with a laptop.
User avatar
BWE
 
Posts: 2674

Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#2790  Postby Spearthrower » Aug 07, 2022 3:58 am

BWE wrote:
The missing part is how many connections a system needs to produce organized behavior. Any system within the right range will produce emergent behavior that always moves towards greater complexity.


But we can directly observe complex systems that become homogeneous.

I'm not going to dispute the central contention, that wholly new stuff/states etc. emerge from interactions - that's one of the many points I've made to Paul - but I don't think the contention that there's only one direction is true.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 31306
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#2791  Postby BWE » Aug 07, 2022 4:41 am

I think it is likely a definitions issue, but complexity is a narrow band of organization phenomena. What you are describing is when a perturbation of an adaptive system overwhelms it. Supernova, getting ejected from a solar system, maybe something like a runaway feedback loop like Venus or the loss of a magnetosphere like Mars or like that is what you are thinking of?
User avatar
BWE
 
Posts: 2674

Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#2792  Postby Spearthrower » Aug 07, 2022 11:29 am

BWE wrote:I think it is likely a definitions issue, but complexity is a narrow band of organization phenomena. What you are describing is when a perturbation of an adaptive system overwhelms it. Supernova, getting ejected from a solar system, maybe something like a runaway feedback loop like Venus or the loss of a magnetosphere like Mars or like that is what you are thinking of?


At the most basic, I am referring back to the 2nd law - that isolated systems will inevitably arrive at a state of equilibrium. That equilibrium can't represent an increase in complexity because there are no more gradients of energy for anything else to happen.

This is probably the most favoured prediction for the ultimate fate of the universe itself - with continued expansion simply resulting in atoms being too far apart and too evenly distributed to interact, so no new suns are formed, no new solar systems, the matter from past galaxies spread out, black holes eventually dying from emitting radiation, and the universe becoming homogenous and dead.

In fact, assuming some evidentially reasonable premises, this fate is mathematically and logically certain because it is just how the universe works at a very elementary level.

Acknowledging that this is either your area of expertise or at least of long-term interest... I don't think that complex systems avoid this - I think the relevant fact of complex systems is that they generate novel states through the availability of emergent interactions - but in that they are embodiments of the 2nd law wherein energy gets tied up in work until all there is insufficient available energy for any other interactions to occur, and at that point, even if they'd been evolving towards greater complexity in all past configurations, that's the end of the increase.

I would argue that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is very much a governing law. It directs and constrains all hows.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 31306
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#2793  Postby pfrankinstein » Aug 07, 2022 10:47 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:Is there had been only one Gallipoli island .... nothing....


You're confused as usual.

It's the Galápagos Islands, not Gallipoli, which is in Turkey.


pfrankinstein wrote:My interest about the subject wains. Proven by by my logic.


Literally no one in the world believes you know your arse from your elbow when it comes to anything at all about the topic, and that extends to logic too.

Incidentally, this again underscores how poorly informed you are about science - even teenagers know this. Science doesn't operate by 'proving things with logic'. We've all educated you about this many times Paul - to do science, you need evidence.



pfrankinstein wrote:I'm curious about AI and the programming of art/ music / colour programming.


It is exciting to think just how many topics you know nothing about but can Live Action Roleplay being an expert in.

Considering it took you nearly 2 decade to still not have a fucking clue in the slightest about evolution, I have no doubt that the members of AI and programming fora are in for an absolute treat of abject ignorance mixed with hubris.


pfrankinstein wrote:So, thriller EVOLUTION process or speciation ... yawn?


If you were even able to write sentences that are coherent, you might have a chance one day to distinguish your rectum from your coccyx from your ulna.


Oh master of the put down, aloof pompous Dawkins style.

Fundamentally I am correct. EVOLUTION = process.

You may elaborate and go on at length about that is how we used to understand the subject, but we are far smarter now.
But that would be you satisfying your aloof ego; not science.

Perfectly legitimate to think in terms of chapters processes of evolution.

You believe your perspective of the subject safe thrower.

Paul
Last edited by pfrankinstein on Aug 07, 2022 10:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
pfrankinstein
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: paul
Posts: 975

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#2794  Postby pfrankinstein » Aug 07, 2022 10:51 pm

BWE wrote:I think it is likely a definitions issue, but complexity is a narrow band of organization phenomena. What you are describing is when a perturbation of an adaptive system overwhelms it. Supernova, getting ejected from a solar system, maybe something like a runaway feedback loop like Venus or the loss of a magnetosphere like Mars or like that is what you are thinking of?


And Darwin played music to worms.

Paul.
pfrankinstein
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: paul
Posts: 975

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#2795  Postby Spearthrower » Aug 08, 2022 2:37 am

pfrankinstein wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:Is there had been only one Gallipoli island .... nothing....


You're confused as usual.

It's the Galápagos Islands, not Gallipoli, which is in Turkey.


pfrankinstein wrote:My interest about the subject wains. Proven by by my logic.


Literally no one in the world believes you know your arse from your elbow when it comes to anything at all about the topic, and that extends to logic too.

Incidentally, this again underscores how poorly informed you are about science - even teenagers know this. Science doesn't operate by 'proving things with logic'. We've all educated you about this many times Paul - to do science, you need evidence.



pfrankinstein wrote:I'm curious about AI and the programming of art/ music / colour programming.


It is exciting to think just how many topics you know nothing about but can Live Action Roleplay being an expert in.

Considering it took you nearly 2 decade to still not have a fucking clue in the slightest about evolution, I have no doubt that the members of AI and programming fora are in for an absolute treat of abject ignorance mixed with hubris.


pfrankinstein wrote:So, thriller EVOLUTION process or speciation ... yawn?


If you were even able to write sentences that are coherent, you might have a chance one day to distinguish your rectum from your coccyx from your ulna.


Oh master of the put down, aloof pompous Dawkins style.

Fundamentally I am correct. EVOLUTION = process.

You may elaborate and go on at length about that is how we used to understand the subject, but we are far smarter now.
But that would be you satisfying your aloof ego; not science.

Perfectly legitimate to think in terms of chapters processes of evolution.

You believe your perspective of the subject safe thrower.

Paul



In other words - Paul once again refuses to acknowledge elementary mistakes, opting instead to launching into first some tone yammering (accusing others of pompousness while having spent hundreds of words poorly roleplaying a condescending genius), then back to mindlessly parroting the same old bullshit yet again.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 31306
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#2796  Postby Spearthrower » Aug 08, 2022 2:50 am

Let's confront your Dunning-Kruger once again, Paul.

Observe how quickly your mind scurries off somewhere safe and easy when presented with a real scientific paper with real science in it:

https://elifesciences.org/articles/76491

Mutational robustness changes during long-term adaptation in laboratory budding yeast populations

As an adapting population traverses the fitness landscape, its local neighborhood (i.e., the collection of fitness effects of single-step mutations) can change shape because of interactions with mutations acquired during evolution. These changes to the distribution of fitness effects can affect both the rate of adaptation and the accumulation of deleterious mutations. However, while numerous models of fitness landscapes have been proposed in the literature, empirical data on how this distribution changes during evolution remains limited. In this study, we directly measure how the fitness landscape neighborhood changes during laboratory adaptation. Using a barcode-based mutagenesis system, we measure the fitness effects of 91 specific gene disruption mutations in genetic backgrounds spanning 8000–10,000 generations of evolution in two constant environments. We find that the mean of the distribution of fitness effects decreases in one environment, indicating a reduction in mutational robustness, but does not change in the other. We show that these distribution-level patterns result from differences in the relative frequency of certain patterns of epistasis at the level of individual mutations, including fitness-correlated and idiosyncratic epistasis.



So what do you think, Paul?

Have they successfully made the case that the control coefficient of selection can affect the prevalence or magnitude of epistasis?

Look at the Results section - see how detailed the discussion is? See how much data they're referring to, how they explain their experimental setup, how they transparently share the results of their actual experiments? Look at the Materials and Methods section, Paul - are you capable of ANYTHING like that at all? You're not, are you? Be honest with yourself for a change. It's not that you're not in the same league, Paul - it's that they're doing science and you're not.

Scientific method requires various things, like evidence and the formation of a testable hypothesis, Paul.

You don't have a hypothesis, Paul. Your hypothesis would need to make a prediction based on your claim. That prediction must be carefully conceived so that you would only achieve that result were your underlying contention true. If <Paul's idea> is true, then X will happen under Y conditions, and would only happen if <Paul's idea> were true but wouldn't happen if <Paul's idea> was false. Don't have this? It's not science, Paul. Whatever it is you think you're doing, it remains not science.

That hypothesis must be plausibly falsifiable. It's no good making up wondrous ideas that remain outside the remit of experimentation. It's obligatory that you attempt to falsify your claim. You've done no such thing - quite the contrary, you repeatedly resist logical and factual falsifications of your claim. If your idea can be shown wrong, then your idea is wrong, Paul. Pretending that your flawed idea still remains coherent is a sham, Paul, but it ain't science.

Finally, evidence Paul. You've been ranting about this for a decade and a half, and yet never once somehow managed to find so much as a scrap of evidence that indicates your idea is derived from actual observation rather than some psychological quantity. That evidence must be shared, must be transparent, must be relevant. You don't have any evidence at all, Paul - you can barely even write a coherent sentence let alone muster a logical case, but both would be excusable if you actually had any evidence at all that supported your garbled claims. You don't. It's just not science Paul. Whatever it is you're doing, it ain't science.

You can rail against everyone for decades more, but if you want the veneer of scientific legitimacy for your woolly nonsense, then you need to actually respect scientific method and engage in the hard work rather than just dry-humping people all the time to get an ego-boost.

You won't though, will you Paul? You'll continue to lazily repeat inane guff nestled in sentences comprised of the syntactical equivalent of a tornado in a portaloo while vigorously pleasuring yourself about what a fucking genius you are, and how you really showed those complete strangers on the internet, oh you'll have the last laugh, oh ye.... fuck me.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 31306
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Previous

Return to Pseudoscience

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests