JayWilson wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:Read your last 5 or 6 posts here, stop being a dick, fuck off.

Paul.

OK, I apologise for that. I was trying to be humorous. That probably didn't come across well.

I think you're conceding more than you need to here, Jay. You reacted reasonably to a stream of incoherence, semantic interpretations presented as scientific theories and nebulous nonsense about quantum mechanics. If he does have anything, he is explaining it extraordinarily badly. Some people think you're being disrespectful if you don't enter "their world" - not realizing that "their world" may be a place that is too incoherent to enter.

Paul Almond wrote:I think you're conceding more than you need to here, Jay. You reacted reasonably to a stream of incoherence, semantic interpretations presented as scientific theories and nebulous nonsense about quantum mechanics.

Probably, yes. To be honest, I'm a little disappointed my abstract musings were not as well received as I would have liked.

Paul Almond wrote:If he does have anything, he is explaining it extraordinarily badly. Some people think you're being disrespectful if you don't enter "their world" - not realizing that "their world" may be a place that is too incoherent to enter.

Perhaps once all this chaff is out the way, we can finally see some of the beautiful wheat inside.

That Durro's a twat, isn't he?


Ooops, di I say that out loud?

hackenslash wrote:That Durro's a twat, isn't he?


Ooops, di I say that out loud?

Stop it! You'll get us done again!

EDIT - I'm declaring this post off-topic so that when a moderator decides that it is off-topic I will be dealt with less severely on account of having owned up to it first. Someone told me that the moderators can have you banned from buying dairy products for a few weeks, but with any luck I'll just be banned from buying something very specific like those yoghurts with the fruit in the separate compartment. I think I can manage without those for a bit while my behaviour is corrected.

John P. M. wrote:Even though I through this thread have often had trouble parsing your sentences and understanding you properly, what is clear is that you propose 'one process'. I could gather as much from the topic header(!).

The full leading foundational statement for the line of enquiry = *The big bang a single beginning denotes a single process, that single process is "Evolution".

An enquiring mind must ask questions of "The most basic premise". Does the "One bang one process" statement stand as a possible truth, does the supposition meet with and explain the observed evidence. In effect, in "evolution" speak the "one bang one process" statement holds up the Big Bang as being the "common ancestor" of all processes.

.........................

I'm fed up........ Narrow minded simpleton spoilers have sapped my will to write more and further recap and explain. Blah.

I will try again later in the week.

Paul.

hackenslash wrote:That Durro's a twat, isn't he?

Ooops, di I say that out loud?

Hey, show some respect. That's MISTER Twat to you, pal.

Durro wrote:

hackenslash wrote:That Durro's a twat, isn't he?

Ooops, di I say that out loud?

Hey, show some respect. That's MISTER Twat to you, pal.

Whats the point in haveing moderators nob head, oops mister nob head.

Sad forum.

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:

Durro wrote:

hackenslash wrote:That Durro's a twat, isn't he?

Ooops, di I say that out loud?

Hey, show some respect. That's MISTER Twat to you, pal.

Whats the point in haveing moderators nob head, oops mister nob head.

Sad forum.

Paul.

Is this part of your theory or are you just commenting on something?

pfrankinstein wrote:

Durro wrote:

hackenslash wrote:That Durro's a twat, isn't he?

Ooops, di I say that out loud?

Hey, show some respect. That's MISTER Twat to you, pal.

Whats the point in haveing moderators nob head, oops mister nob head.

Sad forum.

Paul.

Ahhh, that's better. At last some respect. I would have preferred "Mister Knob Head" spelled correctly, but I acknowledge that it's an imperfect world we live in.

However, as you've seen fit to report my humorous response to Hackenslash's obvious benign joke, I have asked for another Moderator to review the last several posts and I suspect that perhaps some may be binned as off topic, so we can focus on discussing the important issues, whatever they may be...

Durro

Durro wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:

Durro wrote:

Hey, show some respect. That's MISTER Twat to you, pal.

Whats the point in haveing moderators nob head, oops mister nob head.

Sad forum.

Paul.

Ahhh, that's better. At last some respect. I would have preferred "Mister Knob Head" spelled correctly, but I acknowledge that it's an imperfect world we live in.

However, as you've seen fit to report my humorous response to Hackenslash's obvious benign joke, I have asked for another Moderator to review the last several posts and I suspect that perhaps some may be binned as off topic, so we can focus on discussing the important issues, whatever they may be...

Durro

Oops did i spell a word wrong, i must be thick, or perhaps I'm dyslexic, slightly autistic, a brilliant thinker but a crap writer, or possibly a crap writer and thinker to boot. I'm attempting to get an idea, a hypothesis, a theory off my chest. The foundational statement is brilliant, it works. Forums to discuss and share the theory are two a penny, right now i believe that this forum is not up to the job. Do you blame me?

Perhaps i should just bow out eh, go somewhere else.

Learn from past mistakes Durro. Lead by example.

Paul.

Durro wrote: we can focus on discussing the important issues, whatever they may be...

Durro

Exactly. Paul appears to be stating that the Big Bang led directly to Evolution. But I have always been led to believe that the two are totally separate. Obviously without one, there wouldn 't have been the other, but the time gap involved is so large as to render any connection irrelevant. The Universe came into existence 13.72 billion years ago. Earth came into existence 4.6 billon years ago. There was then a period of 800 million years before life emerged in it's most simplest form - cell dividing, reproducing bacteria from which all other life subsequently evolved. That means that the time between the Big Bang occurring and Evolution emerging was a jaw dropping 9.92 billion years. So establishing a physical link between the two is really stretching it. Hence the accepted view that they were independent phenomena. Apologies Paul if I have read you wrongly, but that is the impression I got.

pfrankinstein wrote:

John P. M. wrote:Even though I through this thread have often had trouble parsing your sentences and understanding you properly, what is clear is that you propose 'one process'. I could gather as much from the topic header(!).

The full leading foundational statement for the line of enquiry = *The big bang a single beginning denotes a single process, that single process is "Evolution".

An enquiring mind must ask questions of "The most basic premise". Does the "One bang one process" statement stand as a possible truth, does the supposition meet with and explain the observed evidence. In effect, in "evolution" speak the "one bang one process" statement holds up the Big Bang as being the "common ancestor" of all processes.

.........................

I'm fed up........ Narrow minded simpleton spoilers have sapped my will to write more and further recap and explain. Blah.

I will try again later in the week.

Paul.

Right, so let me see if I've got this. What you are proposing is that there is a basic premise, and that premise is as follows: "One bang, one process." This is the most basic premise. There is a name for this single process. That name is "Evolution". So, the name for the "One bang, one process" process is "Evolution".

An enquiring mind would seek to apply the name "Evolution" to the "One bang, one process" process, which is the basic premise. The statement, "One bang, one process" is a very possible truth in terms of explaining what we observe. Now, in evolutionary terms, the Big Bang is like the last universal ancestor (LUA) for all processes within this universe.

One Big Bang (LUA (the first "primitive type of selection selection")) lies at the beginning of a single process, "Evolution". "Evolution", the "One bang, one process" process (the most basic premise (according to inquiring minds), symbolised as three chevrons, ">>>") itself contains three separate stages:

1. initial, non-biological "cosmic" evolution (formation of matter, stars, galaxies, planets, etc.); that is, non-biological contents of universe;
2. biological evolution: put very simply, the process by which life on this planet has changed and diversified;
3. conscious evolution (through cognitive selection): evolution of ideas — of the mind.

These all in step with the passage of time. The arrow of time is pervasive across these functions, literally from the time you choose to wake up and brush your teeth, through all the events of your days, right through to the time you choose (if you should do so) to go to bed.

These are the three chevrons, the three separate stages, represented together as three chevrons: ">>>". Those are the three chevrons. They represent the "One bang, one process" of "Evolution", the process enquiring minds must seek as a possible truth in explaining our observations of the universe. It is now up to the last chevron, "conscious evolution", to select this new theory of Paul's as part of the ongoing, triple-chevron process of "Evolution". The last part of the "one bang, one process" process pushes forward, according to the arrow of time, extending the chevrons in to their inevitable future. The chevrons represent evolutionary progress, the progression of the "One bang, one process" process — the most basic premise. This is "Evolution".

I hope you don't mind me adding the LUA into the mix there. Also, what are you thoughts on introducing a second "Big Bang" — the one of the Cambrian? How about the industrial [r]evolution, the communications [r]evolution? Surely an inquiring mind must consider these to be part of the "One bang, one process" process. Si ou non?

Edited to add:
Will it be ironic if this theory isn't selected for — that it becomes an unsuccessful conscious organism? At the moment, I fear its current presentation leaves it with a selective disadvantage. That's just my opinion, though.

surreptitious57 wrote:

Durro wrote: we can focus on discussing the important issues, whatever they may be...

Durro

Exactly. Paul appears to be stating that the Big Bang led directly to Evolution. But I have always been led to believe that the two are totally separate. Obviously without one, there wouldn't have been the other, but the time gap involved is so large as to render any connection irrelevant. The Universe came into existence 13.72 billion years ago. Earth came into existence 4.6 billon years ago. There was then a period of 800 million years before life emerged in it's most simplest form - cell dividing, reproducing bacteria from which all other life subsequently evolved. That means that the time between the Big Bang occurring and Evolution emerging was a jaw dropping 9.92 billion years. So establishing a physical link between the two is really stretching it. Hence the accepted view that they were independent phenomena. Apologies Paul if I have read you wrongly, but that is the impression I got.

No apologies necessary.

Lets be clear. I'm stating that a process of Evolution of a primitive kind began with the big bang and that leads to Darwinian evolution.

One must take into account Darwin's unambiguous interpretation/meaning of the Victorian slang term "Evolution" = Descent with modification by means of natural selection. So the precise assertion is that Descent with modification by means of "A" type of selection begin with the big bang. If the laws of physics counts as a primitive type of selection, and the meaning of descent modification can be regressed/modified to their most basic meaning/connotation and still be seen/accepted as a true primitive type of evolution then the answer is yes. Evolution began with the bb.

Science Observation.. For there to be evolution of any kind there must be the means to store and pass on knowledge.

Q,Do rocks/inorganic material store "Knowledge" and pass "knowledge" on?

Can it be said with validity that solar systems "evolve" by descent with modification and by means of a primitive type of selection [physics].

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:Do rocks/inorganic material store "Knowledge" and pass "knowledge" on?

Fossils?

We store information on inorganic devices.

So > The answer: yes.

?

pfrankinstein wrote:Lets be clear. I'm stating that a process of Evolution of a primitive kind began with the big bang and that leads to Darwinian evolution.

So, you're saying that the "One bang, one process" process started with a "big bang" (or "Big Bang"), and part of the triple-chevron process is Darwinian evolution. Why "Darwinian" evolution, specifically? Why not biological evolution? Or, do you consider these to be synonymous?

Oh... it's the Victorian slang thing? That is appealing/definitive?

pfrankinstein wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

Durro wrote: we can focus on discussing the important issues, whatever they may be...

Durro

Exactly. Paul appears to be stating that the Big Bang led directly to Evolution. But I have always been led to believe that the two are totally separate. Obviously without one, there wouldn't have been the other, but the time gap involved is so large as to render any connection irrelevant. The Universe came into existence 13.72 billion years ago. Earth came into existence 4.6 billon years ago. There was then a period of 800 million years before life emerged in it's most simplest form - cell dividing, reproducing bacteria from which all other life subsequently evolved. That means that the time between the Big Bang occurring and Evolution emerging was a jaw dropping 9.92 billion years. So establishing a physical link between the two is really stretching it. Hence the accepted view that they were independent phenomena. Apologies Paul if I have read you wrongly, but that is the impression I got.

No apologies necessary.

Lets be clear. I'm stating that a process of Evolution of a primitive kind began with the big bang and that leads to Darwinian evolution.

One must take into account Darwin's unambiguous interpretation/meaning of the Victorian slang term "Evolution" = Descent with modification by means of natural selection. So the precise question is did Descent with modification by means of "A" type of selection begin with the big bang. If the laws of physics counts as a primitive type of selection, and the meaning of descent modification can be regressed/modified to their most basic meaning/connotation and accepted as evolution then the answer is yes. Evolution began with the bb.

SO>Also. For there to be evolution of any kind there must be the means to store and pass on knowledge.

Do rocks/inorganic material store "Knowledge" and pass "knowledge" on?

Can it be said with validity that solar systems "evolve" by descent with modification and by means of a primitive type of selection [physics].

Paul.

The conventional view is that Evolution only applies to organic matter such as bacteria, plants and animals. It does not apply to non-organic matter such as stars and planets. By this logic, you are wrong because you are stretching the definition of what a particular phenomena is and what it specifically affects. This explains why every poster here finds difficultly in what you are hypothesising. By your assumption then, Evolution is present throughhout the Universe. I can see a logical thread in your argument. One could state that the Sun possesses knowlege, since it converts helium into hydrogen which then travels at light speed to Earth and is absorbed by plants through photosynthesis which allows them to grow and since plants are organic, then this chain of events would not come to pass without the Sun which is necessary for life to exist here. So I understand your point. But an inorganic entity like a star is not alive in the sense that an organic one such as a plant is. Evolution only applies to the latter, not the former. Sorry Paul, but I have to agree with the consensus on this. But I see your reasoning if that helps.

Okay. Paul, please describe the very first evolutionary process that kicked in right after the Big Bang. What is being selected for and how?