romansh wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:
I've not googled him.

Have you had a chance to google whether snowflakes replicate?

Darwin died 19 April 1882. 

A Belgian priest named Georges Lemaître first suggested the big bang theory in the 1920s, when he theorized that the universe began from a single primordial atom.17 Jan 2017


https://www.nationalgeographic
Origins of the universe, explained - National Geographic


More results

Paul

Will this 'selection process' or the big bang ever lead to Paul explaining whether he thinks snowflakes replicate?

explicate
/ˈɛksplɪkeɪt/
Learn to pronounce


verb
analyse and develop (an idea or principle) in detail.
a theory from process to biology.
Definitive = Evolution = Process

Children are taught that evolution is a process, and rightly so.

See how different the landscape is when you nail down a word. Students answer like mathematicians.

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:

TopCat wrote:I'm starting to think that the people that are still engaging with Paul on this thread are the idiots.

Tell me TC do you envisage NS as a calculation made by nature or do you see it as Analogy?

Nice try. Bye now.

fluttermoth wrote:(You're probably right, but I'm stuck at home with nothing to do a lot of the time, and I do learn a lot from the other posters )

Yes, so do I, but there are much better threads to do this with. Even Wortfish used to use actual sentences at least part of the time.

pfrankinstein wrote:explicate
verb
analyse and develop (an idea or principle) in detail.

Can you explicate whether snowflakes replicate or not?

It started with a bang, but all were left with is a terrible hang.

TopCat wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:

TopCat wrote:I'm starting to think that the people that are still engaging with Paul on this thread are the idiots.

Tell me TC do you envisage NS as a calculation made by nature or do you see it as Analogy?

Nice try. Bye now.

But I so value your opinion sir.

Given what we learn today about AI and artificial selection , do you think we should look again at the NS = AS. Question.

I'd have it Charles Darwin meant human selection when he inserted "Artificial selection. An update to sir.

Hang on, NS, HS, AS.. cricket the beginning of a chart.

Do you have an onion TC?



Paul

romansh wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:explicate
verb
analyse and develop (an idea or principle) in detail.

Can you explicate whether snowflakes replicate or not?

Dreamy can't afford to be dreamy, psudoscience. Am I so out of step with science to be here?

“When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.”
― Max Planck

Paul.

THWOTH wrote:It started with a bang, but all were left with is a terrible hang.

Is it fair to describe it as a "shapeshifter process.?

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:

THWOTH wrote:It started with a bang, but all were left with is a terrible hang.

Is it fair to describe it as a "shapeshifter process.?

Paul.

Depends what you mean by 'shape', 'shifter' and 'process' I guess - and probably 'fair' and 'describe' as well.

THWOTH wrote:It started with a bang, but all were left with is a terrible hang.

Do we evolve to understand the Comos?


Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:
Dreamy can't afford to be dreamy, psudoscience. Am I so out of step with science to be here?

Can't say anything about your science, you have not presented any. But your rationality is out of step.

pfrankinstein wrote:“When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.”

Maybe you can look at whether snowflakes replicate or not. I doubt it, but one never knows.

THWOTH wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:

THWOTH wrote:It started with a bang, but all were left with is a terrible hang.

Is it fair to describe it as a "shapeshifter process.?

Paul.

Depends what you mean by 'shape', 'shifter' and 'process' I guess - and probably 'fair' and 'describe' as well.

The way the single process presents itself when circumstancess allow.

A quandary,

"The stuff of stars by the same process".

My theory involves light and colours.

Psudoscience. Primal selection.



Paul.

romansh wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:
Dreamy can't afford to be dreamy, psudoscience. Am I so out of step with science to be here?

Can't say anything about your science, you have not presented any. But your rationality is out of step.

pfrankinstein wrote:“When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.”

Maybe you can look at whether snowflakes replicate or not. I doubt it, but one never knows.

I envisage one bang = one process, how many do you envisage sir?

Paul.

romansh wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:
Dreamy can't afford to be dreamy, psudoscience. Am I so out of step with science to be here?

Can't say anything about your science, you have not presented any. But your rationality is out of step.

pfrankinstein wrote:“When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.”

Maybe you can look at whether snowflakes replicate or not. I doubt it, but one never knows.

I wouldn't like to speculate.

The further you move away from the item; "chart of selection". The more evidenced.

Charles Darwin was a man of his time. Not polite to correct agentle man on his birthday.

Charles Darwin meant "human selection and not "Artificial selection; the relevence of the phrase he had not yet discoverd.

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:I envisage one bang = one process, how many do you envisage sir?

OK a second question for you to not answer and not speculate:
The gravitational 'pull' we might observe in a Cavendish torsion balance how is it the same "one process" as the one we find in the ATP cycle for all known forms of life?
Note, I am not arguing it is not "one process", I just want to see what you mean by one process.

pfrankinstein wrote: "human selection and not "Artificial selection

For you, what is the difference between human and artificial selection?

pfrankinstein wrote:

THWOTH wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:

THWOTH wrote:It started with a bang, but all were left with is a terrible hang.

Is it fair to describe it as a "shapeshifter process.?

Paul.

Depends what you mean by 'shape', 'shifter' and 'process' I guess - and probably 'fair' and 'describe' as well.

The way the single process presents itself when circumstancess allow.

A quandary,

"The stuff of stars by the same process".

My theory involves light and colours.

Psudoscience. Primal selection.



Paul.

OK. I'll bite.

All natural processes are embedded in other natural processes.
The Universe is that in which all natural processes are contained.

You claim that this container is necessarily (imperative) a process explainable in scientific terms by way of selective evolution, and yet you consistently fail to articulate how, and, therefore, why. Why do you have trouble articulating that I wonder? Well...

It's a matter of perspective, or philosophy (or sophistry)--a matter of belief, of accepting an idea as being correct or true and reflecting Reality (capital R)--rather than science, which aims towards a rigorous description of some aspect of the natural world.

As an idea it strikes me as being, in essence, a secular form of deism, and as such your idea suffers from deism's twin perils: i) even if true it adds zero information to our understanding of the material world and has zero impact on our personal interaction with, perception and/or understanding of the material world, and ii) it invokes a paradox of irreducibility: i.e. if the Universe a process then in what is it contained, and what contains that container(?) etc.

In response to the first peril you'd probably be inclined to say something like: “When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.” And while that could be said to be true (for some people, in some situations) in a philosophical or ideological sense, one would be extremely hard pushed to demonstrate that it was true in a material sense.

For example, one might change the way one looked at snowflakes, and say that they don't form under certain material conditions but instead evolve by some selective process, but then one would have to address questions like "What are these selective forces working on snowflakes, and how do snowflakes replicate, and therefore evolve?" (and before one knows it you're most likely rapidly hoping on-and-off the equivocation train). So that aphoristic approach is redundant, because it essentially says nothing but, "When you change the way you look at things, the way you look at things has changed." That is to say, no additional or new information is brought to the table; there is no material impact on our perception or understanding of things simply by categorising natural processes with material explanations 'evolution'.

In response to the second peril you'd probably be inclined to invoke some higher order of universe - a literal and figurative higher power, like a Universe-containing Superverse, or perhaps a Multiverse of Superverses, or a Megaverse of Multiverses. And again, while those notions could appear to wash away the Universe-level irreducibility problem, all they really do is shift the paradox one level up in a hierarchy of *Verses, and thus onto some claimed-for material explanation for which there is, at present, no material support.

But even if the SuperMegaMetaverse was a real and rigorously, scientifically demonstrable thing, it's mere existence would not mean this ultimate-container-of-containers was necessarily (imperative) a process explainable in scientific terms by way of selective evolutionary processes.

So while we could say that a universe, like the snowflakes, is something that forms under certain material conditions, not knowing exactly what those universe-arising conditions are (or are likely to be) does not leave explanations for every material thing within that universe up for grabs, nor does it leave the door open for every imaginable conception about what the world is and how it works to be granted equal weight, regard or explanatory force.

Ultimately, in the face of the debunking of your quaint ideas, you will opine that your objectors here are simply reluctant to "change the way they look at things", and you'll no doubt go to some lengths to cast that as a moral and/or cognitive failing, before admonishing them for not going to enough lenghts to demonstrate to your satisfaction that your notions about the nature of the material world are not true - hence you find this discussion siloed to the pseudoscience section of the forum.

romansh wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote: "human selection and not "Artificial selection

For you, what is the difference between human and artificial selection?

Charles Darwin understood that selective breeding gave us pets and domestic livestock.

To rationalise the difference between animals that had emerged purely by natural means from those that emerged by nature and human manipulation, via selected breeding. He used the lable NSelection and Artificial selection.

1,So if we say NS = purely life, biology and speciation.

2,Human selection, speciation and application beyond just biology; mankinds artefacts. Machines.

3,Artificial intelligence makes Artificial selection. It's application?

For me Charles Darwin discovered Human Selection.

Humans make human selection, AI makes AS. It really is that simple. A rational Concise update.

Paul.