One bang one process.

Evolution.

Discussions on astrology, homeopathy and superstition etc.

Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron

Re: One bang one process.

#1581  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 13, 2022 8:43 pm

The algorithm, the weft of the universe and consequently the algorithm of pretty much everything taken to extreme ultimate explanations, is equalisation of disequilibria via entropy. In biological terms, this is basically proton gradients. Water flows downhill, higher concentrations dilute with lower concentrations until they are balanced, disequilibria of ions generates electrochemical potential.

There is a format to this, a structure of the universe, but to say that the process of Darwinian evolution existed at the beginning of the universe is to make a category mistake.
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: 33854
Age: 47
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#1582  Postby pfrankinstein » Jan 13, 2022 8:58 pm

scott1328 wrote:I suggest that the O.P. read "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" by Daniel Dennett.

In this very long book Dennett presents a thesis that Evolution by Natural Selection is an algorithm. And that algorithm can be found outside of biology.

One of these realms is "Memetics". What Dawkins presented as a metaphor in "The Selfish Gene", Dennett attempts to flush out as a legitimate case of a Darwinian Algorithm outside of biology,

Dennet's thesis is not exactly the same as what the the OP is asserting but it might give the OP a clue on how to frame his rambling.


Thanks for that alas no time.

Did either of them propose a universal mechanism?

https://youtu.be/-8bqQ-C1PSE
pfrankinstein
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: paul
Posts: 1814

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#1583  Postby scott1328 » Jan 13, 2022 9:03 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:
scott1328 wrote:I suggest that the O.P. read "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" by Daniel Dennett.

In this very long book Dennett presents a thesis that Evolution by Natural Selection is an algorithm. And that algorithm can be found outside of biology.

One of these realms is "Memetics". What Dawkins presented as a metaphor in "The Selfish Gene", Dennett attempts to flush out as a legitimate case of a Darwinian Algorithm outside of biology,

Dennet's thesis is not exactly the same as what the the OP is asserting but it might give the OP a clue on how to frame his rambling.


Thanks for that alas no time.

Did either of them propose a universal mechanism?

https://youtu.be/-8bqQ-C1PSE


No, neither Dawkins nor Dennett are nearly as pretentious or stupid as that.

I don't understand how you can have time to post here and not have time to pick up a damn book.
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 8849
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#1584  Postby hackenslash » Jan 13, 2022 9:11 pm

It's not like he desperately needed to pick up a book. Most of the information he needs is already in the thread, along with knowledgeable people to guide him.

He has plenty of time, he's just not interested. Spearthrower nailed it.
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22910
Age: 54
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post


Re: One bang one process.

#1586  Postby pfrankinstein » Jan 13, 2022 9:50 pm

hackenslash wrote:It's not like he desperately needed to pick up a book. Most of the information he needs is already in the thread, along with knowledgeable people to guide him.

He has plenty of time, he's just not interested. Spearthrower nailed it.
Spearthrower wrote:The algorithm, the weft of the universe and consequently the algorithm of pretty much everything taken to extreme ultimate explanations, is equalisation of disequilibria via entropy. In biological terms, this is basically proton gradients. Water flows downhill, higher concentrations dilute with lower concentrations until they are balanced, disequilibria of ions generates electrochemical potential.

There is a format to this, a structure of the universe, but to say that the process of Darwinian evolution existed at the beginning of the universe is to make a category mistake.


A chapter mistake. Words fail me/us, my ability to communicate my theory is hampered, not by rational thinking or innovation on my part.

The maturity of the forum is, for me very much in question to my mind.

Paul
pfrankinstein
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: paul
Posts: 1814

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#1587  Postby pfrankinstein » Jan 13, 2022 9:58 pm

hackenslash wrote:It's not like he desperately needed to pick up a book. Most of the information he needs is already in the thread, along with knowledgeable people to guide him.

He has plenty of time, he's just not interested. Spearthrower nailed it.


No I'm flagging.

The big bang, a fraction of implosion to start?

Paul.
pfrankinstein
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: paul
Posts: 1814

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#1588  Postby hackenslash » Jan 13, 2022 10:04 pm

Who said the big bang started?
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22910
Age: 54
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#1589  Postby scott1328 » Jan 13, 2022 10:08 pm

Lawrence Kraus's "A Universe From Nothing" is an interesting read. He discusses a universe of Eternal Inflation.

Paul seems to favor big ideas there can be nothing bigger than Eternal Inflation
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 8849
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#1590  Postby hackenslash » Jan 13, 2022 10:12 pm

It's a nice theory. It needs new physics, but we already know we need new physics.
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22910
Age: 54
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#1591  Postby pfrankinstein » Jan 13, 2022 10:57 pm

scott1328 wrote:I suggest that the O.P. read "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" by Daniel Dennett.

In this very long book Dennett presents a thesis that Evolution by Natural Selection is an algorithm. And that algorithm can be found outside of biology.

One of these realms is "Memetics". What Dawkins presented as a metaphor in "The Selfish Gene", Dennett attempts to flush out as a legitimate case of a Darwinian Algorithm outside of biology,

Dennet's thesis is not exactly the same as what the the OP is asserting but it might give the OP a clue on how to frame his rambling.


Pseudoscience though ...

Single Theory is built from the top accepted science theories of the day.

I weigh measure and make comparisons.

I look for similarities and compare the main differences in each chapter.

I play music to express myself.

Pseudoscience though.

Shall I bow out now?

Sad me.
pfrankinstein
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: paul
Posts: 1814

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#1592  Postby pfrankinstein » Jan 13, 2022 11:21 pm

I measure it by itself.

It is not the process that changes but the circumstance that the process finds itself in...

Those circumstances being totally different in every aspect.

Domain. Material. Storage of information. And the way that information is passed on.

I'm a pseudo science oddity.

Que the bloke getting slogged by a wet fish.

Paul.



Paul.
Last edited by pfrankinstein on Jan 13, 2022 11:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
pfrankinstein
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: paul
Posts: 1814

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#1593  Postby hackenslash » Jan 13, 2022 11:26 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:I measure it by itself.


Where are your measurements? What did you measure? What were your error bars? What's your sigma level, and how did you arrive at it?

Domain. Material. Storage of information. And the way that information is passed on.


Excellent, now you have to study Kolmogorov and Shannon as well.
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22910
Age: 54
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#1594  Postby hackenslash » Jan 13, 2022 11:34 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:Pseudoscience though ...


Nicht einmal...

Single Theory is built from the top accepted science theories of the day.


Last person successfully to do so to my knowledge was Emmy Noether, and you've been skirting around losing your shirt to her from the get-go (famous semi-tongue-in-cheek warning from physicists to 'inventors' of over-unity machines).

I weigh measure and make comparisons.


Then you'll have no trouble presenting your measurements and methodology so that we might check them, along with a coherent limiting statement of what your thesis actually is and how it teaches us anything we didn't already know, like the trivial 'stochastic systems evolve'. What did you weigh, exactly?

I look for similarities and compare the main differences in each chapter.


Pattern-seeking isn't a detailed methodology. What are you comparing?
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22910
Age: 54
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#1595  Postby pfrankinstein » Jan 14, 2022 12:15 am

hackenslash wrote:
pfrankinstein wrote:I measure it by itself.


Where are your measurements? What did you measure? What were your error bars? What's your sigma level, and how did you arrive at it?

Domain. Material. Storage of information. And the way that information is passed on.


Excellent, now you have to study Kolmogorov and Shannon as well.


Gulp.

https://youtu.be/2q9_ZEtuTR8

Is human selection an advancement of Natural selection.

You could argue that question in many ways.

One could argue that because one SELECTION type strives to understand and manipulate for gain the other. Then good selection is an advancement.

I prefer to see 'human selection' rather than focus on positive good selection whatever that is.

I don't see enough goodness in the sample plain and simple.

Paul.
pfrankinstein
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: paul
Posts: 1814

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#1596  Postby hackenslash » Jan 14, 2022 12:23 am

You don't argue questions, and science isn't conducted by argument in any event. Now, about those questions. Present your sums.
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22910
Age: 54
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#1597  Postby Greg the Grouper » Jan 14, 2022 12:51 am

I'm kind of fascinated by the idea of a process that remains consistent while all relevant components of that process change entirely. Like a car that starts after the battery's been replaced with a cat.
The evolution of intelligence has gone beyond the restrains of biological individual generations.
Greg the Grouper
 
Name: Patrick
Posts: 549

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#1598  Postby Cito di Pense » Jan 14, 2022 4:54 am

pfrankinstein wrote:
Que the bloke getting slogged by a wet fish.


Oh, you kipper.

A clever fellow once said, "If you're the smartest person in the room, you're in the wrong room." You can also substitute "most erudite", but remember that school don't make ya smart, a message for autodidacts. Einstein revolutionised physics without being all that good in school. Later, the field of physics just got away from him. What is relevant is the process by which we learn anything. There's a long, hard road that takes us from here to being able to lecture a room full of experts, which this place is not, so it won't take us there by itself. Most of us are not that special snowflake that's going to revolutionise science. It's chilling to realise that half of everyone is below average in intelligence, but for that to sink in, you have to understand probability distributions. We may have to accept that someone else is more knowledgeable (and maybe smarter) than we are.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Jan 14, 2022 5:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 30789
Age: 24
Male

Country: Nutbush City Limits
Ukraine (ua)
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#1599  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 14, 2022 5:14 am

pfrankinstein wrote:
scott1328 wrote:I suggest that the O.P. read "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" by Daniel Dennett.

In this very long book Dennett presents a thesis that Evolution by Natural Selection is an algorithm. And that algorithm can be found outside of biology.

One of these realms is "Memetics". What Dawkins presented as a metaphor in "The Selfish Gene", Dennett attempts to flush out as a legitimate case of a Darwinian Algorithm outside of biology,

Dennet's thesis is not exactly the same as what the the OP is asserting but it might give the OP a clue on how to frame his rambling.


Thanks for that alas no time.



Yet apparently ample time for acting like a parrot, complete with the grammatical capability of a parrot, to complete strangers on the internet for years!

That's really the point Paul - you don't take the time to inform yourself, then you're hardly in the position to be informing others who do take the time to learn.

As I told you 15 years ago - Learn stuff: stuff good.
Last edited by Spearthrower on Jan 14, 2022 5:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
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: 33854
Age: 47
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: One bang one process.

#1600  Postby Spearthrower » Jan 14, 2022 5:16 am

pfrankinstein wrote:
A chapter mistake. Words fail me/us, my ability to communicate my theory is hampered, not by rational thinking or innovation on my part.

The maturity of the forum is, for me very much in question to my mind.



1) Claims to be preoccupied with rational thinking, then makes a universal criticism of the membership of this forum he chooses to frequent.

2) Claims to be a rational thinker, but can't seem to stop himself posting links to pop songs, because we all know that indicates rational discourse.


Paul, stow it mate - you've got zero credibility here, and your lofty declarations about yourself are comedy, not reality.
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: 33854
Age: 47
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Pseudoscience

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest