One bang one process.

byofrcs · **#81** by **byofrcs** » Apr 03, 2011 2:07 am

Paul Almond wrote:
John P. M. wrote:Not sure what I've been smoking, but I think I actually understand that Paul is trying to say.

Oh, I can get some kind of idea. I'm sure numerous people here have speculated about the idea that something like evolution and natural selection could operate on a larger scale - I certainly have - and at least one other person above may have done. A lot of us aren't as close minded as many theists think. Anyone thinking about such things should realize that this is getting very speculative - and when you don't realize that you have crossed over into speculation you run into trouble. The OP seems to be trying to turn it all into some kind of theory that isn't explained coherently. There is already discussion about this kind of thing: the OP doesn't seem to add to it.

Well yes I see everything that exists is there because it was selected for. A good example is the periodic table. The forces that bind the bits of atoms together are whatever they are but the side effect of this is to act as a selector for the elements when they are forced into existence (stellar nuclear-synthesis etc) and those that don't fit (too many or too few parts) then decay to what happens to be stable in this universe. Thus you end up with the higgle-d-piggle-d mess that is the periodic table with its many stable isotopes but equally many unstable isotopes and more importantly a vast space that will never exist (though can for short period of time when humans have a go).

In no way are these decay chain processes relevant to evolution of species. Evolution of species has its own natural selection process (that is not applicable to decay chains).

Thus my claim is that for everything that exists that is natural (not designed) there exists a selection process that is the only reason that it does exist. This though allows us to divide stuff into the natural and the designed. When we see a watch on a path then we don't need to ask about the designer, we ask, "How was it selected for ?, what natural process can we find that allowed this to exist ?". If we fail to find such a process then that is a tick-in-the-box for a "Designer".

So far we haven't found such a thing. Everything we find to date has some kind of "selector" be it in the formation of stars, of planets, of elements, or of living things.

byofrcs · **#82** by **byofrcs** » Apr 03, 2011 3:12 am

pfrankinstein wrote:
byofrcs wrote:I have no problems that all that exists is a function of selection from the smallest to the largest scale but I see there as being as many types of selection as there are things that exist.

So you envisage many many types of selection?

OK. Suppose you further collect together and divide those many types of selection.

'Natural selection' is a multi faceted concept yet we apply it broadly as a one.

I'm simply asserting that because there are chiefly three broad types of domain [outer space, Earth, Intellectual] and chiefly three types of material [inorganic,organic, mind] that there are chiefly three types of selection.

The way that the 'single chain of evolution' is dissected is perfectly legitimate, if one considers that it is the total difference in a phenomenon that makes it stand out.

Paul.

I'm a materialist so there is only matter for me (or energy with matter-energy equivalence). I don't see a need to divide the matter into different domains. Thus certainly see no need to divide into "outer space" and "Earth" and definitely not into "mind".

As for the mind then I don't see a need to divide that out as the same problems of mind can apply to a computer that functions like a mind. If you copy the memories of a mind (which are the material structures) then it will copy the person. If you ask it questions then you would not be able to ascertain if it was the original or the copy. This same functional problem applies with a simple computer. Copy the memories and you copy the computer - ask it questions (hostname etc etc) and would not be able to ascertain if it was the original or the copy.

So different matter but same functionality. The same argument works with say artificial hearts - pile of plastic and metal functions like a heart and keeps someone alive like the heart does because it has the same functionality. Same with kidney machines. Thus, though our computers are notoriously bad at the functionality of mind, if we consider a subset we can map functionality.

The division into organic and inorganic is as arbitrary as saying that this atom has carbon and this doesn't. Matter has functionality which emerges when the matter forms. Carbon forms chains with itself. Other elements do this too, just not as well as carbon. So the division into organic and inorganic is predicated on the functionality of carbon catenation. So we end up having one domain of matter and any internal demarcation is going to be arbitrary according to characteristics of the matter.

Mr.Samsa · **#83** by **Mr.Samsa** » Apr 03, 2011 7:10 am

!

MODNOTE
@pfrankinstein:

pfrankinstein wrote:Nowhere until the thread is moved away from pseudoscience and recategorised.

How many 'moderators' does it take to change a light bulb?

I'm sorry but the thread will not be moved as it is not a scientific topic. If you start presenting some science (perhaps by referencing some scientific topics, presenting peer reviewed articles, and then tying it all together in one coherent thought process) then we can look at it again to consider if it needs moving. But to be honest, given the aim you've presented in the OP, I can't see how you can make it scientific at all so unless something radical changes, it will remain in pseudoscience.

Please don't reply to this note in this thread - If you have any problems, then feel free to PM me or another moderator.

Thanks :cheers:

pfrankinstein · **#84** by **pfrankinstein** » Apr 03, 2011 12:50 pm

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Validate lead statement: The Big Bang a single beginning denotes a single process, that single process = evolution.

wiki wrote:The Big Bang model or theory is the prevailing cosmological theory of the early development of the universe. According to the Big Bang model, the universe was originally in an extremely hot and dense state that expanded rapidly. This expansion caused the universe to cool and resulted in the present diluted state that continues to expand today. Based on the best available measurements as of 2010[update], the original state of the universe existed around 13.7 billion years ago,[1][2] which is often referred to as the time when the Big Bang occurred.[3][4] The theory is the most comprehensive and accurate explanation supported by scientific evidence and observations.
Planck epoch (or Planck era), named after Max Planck, is the earliest period of time in the history of the universe, from zero to approximately 10−43 seconds (Planck time), during which, it is believed, quantum effects of gravity were significant. One could also say that it is the earliest moment in time, as the Planck time is perhaps the shortest possible interval of time, and the Planck epoch lasted only this brief instant. At this point approximately 13.7 billion years ago the force of gravity is believed to have been as strong as the other fundamental forces, which hints at the possibility that all the forces were unified. Inconceivably hot and dense, the state of the universe during the Planck epoch was unstable or transitory, tending to evolve, giving rise to the familiar manifestations of the fundamental forces through a process known as symmetry breaking. Modern cosmology now suggests that the Planck epoch may have inaugurated a period of unification or Grand unification epoch, and that symmetry breaking then quickly led to the era of cosmic inflation, the Inflationary epoch, during which the universe greatly expanded in scale over a very short period of time.

The four fundamental forces were probably as one/unified at the Plank epoch , do we all agree that the Big Bang represents the single beginning of our Universe?

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

The chronological movement of 'selection' from 'bang' to 'cognition' has not yet been charted by science, so in that regard mine is an attempt to open up new ground.

Everything new must be 'woo' or 'pseudoscience' poor assessment Mr Samsa.

Paul.

The_Metatron · **#85** by **The_Metatron** » Apr 03, 2011 1:03 pm

Come off it, Paul. You know how it works. You came here with conclusions. Then, when pressed about your hypothesis or method of testing it, you jump onto the "Everything new must be 'woo' or 'pseudoscience'" train. How about you diagram this for us? What's your hypothesis? How did you/do you propose to test it?

Are are you just making shit up? What do I think? You've got nothing. I think we're going to go round and round asking you what the fuck you're talking about and you will evade, then tell us all how we aren't as bright as you because what you spout makes no sense.

If you're so bright, you should be able to figure out how to explain what the hell you're on about so it's understandable. Then, if you're "new ideas" are worth a tinker's dam, they will withstand scrutiny.

I bet we never get to that last part.

Mr.Samsa · **#86** by **Mr.Samsa** » Apr 03, 2011 1:10 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:Everything new must be 'woo' or 'pseudoscience' poor assessment Mr Samsa.

I didn't say that everything new was "woo" or "pseudoscience", I said that your topic is not scientific - which it plainly is not. It's not parsimonious, falsifiable, or even vaguely coherent, you haven't built from previous work, explained what data you hope to account for that prior models fail to account for, and you haven't even attempted to explain how such an idea can be tested. For example, you suggest that the big bang can be understood in evolutionary terms, yet I'm unsure how the "change in allele frequencies in a population" applies to expansion of space and time. If you were merely suggesting that some kind of selection algorithm can act on the scale of universes, then you could discuss Lee Smolin's fecund universes and explain the similarities and differences of your own ideas.

I suggest you read the wikipedia page on science, and once you grasp a basic idea of what the field entails, give your idea another crack.

Thanks :cheers:

pfrankinstein · **#87** by **pfrankinstein** » Apr 03, 2011 1:13 pm

byofrcs wrote: I'm a materialist so there is only matter for me (or energy with matter-energy equivalence). I don't see a need to divide the matter into different domains. Thus certainly see no need to divide into "outer space" and "Earth" and definitely not into "mind".

The division into organic and inorganic is as arbitrary as saying that this atom has carbon and this doesn't. Matter has functionality which emerges when the matter forms. Carbon forms chains with itself. Other elements do this too, just not as well as carbon. So the division into organic and inorganic is predicated on the functionality of carbon catenation. So we end up having one domain of matter and any internal demarcation is going to be arbitrary according to characteristics of the matter.

The importance of dissection is lost on you.?
Puzzled.

Would i be right in assuming that the reason you only know what you know today is because somebody else, a pioneer before you dissected studied categorized and explained/made their findings accessible to you?

Paul.

colubridae · **#88** by **colubridae** » Apr 03, 2011 1:38 pm

The_Metatron wrote:
Are are you just making shit up?

You said shit.

pfrankinstein · **#89** by **pfrankinstein** » Apr 03, 2011 2:54 pm

colubridae wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:
Are are you just making shit up?

You said shit.

Innovators sometimes can be impolitely accused of 'making shit up' , some people have an automatic dislike to anything that is new or out of the ordinary.

Some things that are made up are shit, somethings useful.

If one makes something up and it is good then it is called an innovation, if one makes something up and it is shit then poo.

So you see it is not wrong or stupid to make something up, so long as it is good/useful and appropriate to do so.

Innovation Definition:
1.[noun] a creation (a new device or process) resulting from study and experimentation
Synonyms: invention

2.[noun] the creation of something in the mind
Synonyms: invention, excogitation, conception, design

3.[noun] the act of starting something for the first time; introducing something new; "she looked forward to her initiation as an adult"; "the foundation of a new scientific society"; "he regards the fork as a modern introduction"
Synonyms: initiation, founding, foundation, institution, origination, creation, introduction, instauration

Paul.

Paul Almond · **#90** by **Paul Almond** » Apr 03, 2011 3:24 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:do we all agree that the Big Bang represents the single beginning of our Universe?

It depends what you mean by "universe". Two different definitions for the word are in common use today, with different people insisting that each definition is correct, leading to confusion. This confusion over meanings can make it a dangerous word to be involved with when people are being asked for philosophical commitments.

If by "universe" you mean "our local expansion of space-time" then yes: most people here will accept that the big bang represents the single beginning of our universe.

If by "universe" you mean "everything" then that will be much more controversial, and some people will not accept that the big bang represents the single beginning of the universe - or at least not be sure that it does. I would be one of them.

I have a question, pfrankinstein, and I think it is important to this discussion. Could you say exactly what you regard the word "evolution" as meaning, in the context in which it is being used by you, here?

colubridae · **#91** by **colubridae** » Apr 03, 2011 3:30 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:Synonyms: invention, excogitation, conception, design

you said "excogitation".

The_Metatron · **#92** by **The_Metatron** » Apr 03, 2011 3:43 pm

Lovely, Paul.

What you're being told here is that all you've done is show up with some vomitus from your imagination. I asked you to define your terms to clarify your OP, your responded with a smartass answer. You don't even have what would qualify as a hypothesis. Later, I asked you to describe how you tested this hypothesis. Nothing from you on that but static.

What do you really want? Are you first expecting someone to tell you how fucking brilliant your idea is before you submit your "innovation" for destruction? You ought to know by now, if your "innovation" won't survive examination here, you have no hope of it being accepted as science in any real peer review.

cursuswalker · **#93** by **cursuswalker** » Apr 03, 2011 4:46 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:
cursuswalker wrote:The Theory of Evolution only makes predictions with regard to the development of new species after life began.

However hard people try to expand its purview, in order to make it vulnerable to attack, they will not succeed.

I'm a great believer in the concept of context = coherence, mine is to place 'Darwinian evolution [forward slash] biological evolution into context of its own advancement by using itself as its own measure, both the process itself and our understanding of the process.

Many who understand 'evolution' probably do not realise that there has been a shift in the way we view the subject, naturalist/biologist, naked eye/ microscope hence the forward slash.

Yes. Mine is to broaden out the theory of evolution, to do so i must accept Darwins theory as plausible fact.
No. My ideas do not make 'it' [?] vulnerable to attack, in total contrast to your conjecture, a broader understanding can only serve to compliment and enhance the Theory of evolution.

Paul.

The broader understanding you speak of is called "science".

Evolution still only refers to the development of new species AFTER the beginning of life.

John P. M. · **#94** by **John P. M.** » Apr 03, 2011 5:42 pm

To put it as simply as possible (for me):

To get to "one bang = one process", what overarching mechanism do you propose ties the various forms of development (material, stellar, nebular, biological) in our local expansion into one single process? That should be easy enough to answer.

If all you wanted was to discuss a loose idea you had, then we've already done that. But you wanted this thread in the Science section, so you must have some 'meat' behind it, right?

byofrcs · **#95** by **byofrcs** » Apr 03, 2011 5:48 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:
byofrcs wrote: I'm a materialist so there is only matter for me (or energy with matter-energy equivalence). I don't see a need to divide the matter into different domains. Thus certainly see no need to divide into "outer space" and "Earth" and definitely not into "mind".

The division into organic and inorganic is as arbitrary as saying that this atom has carbon and this doesn't. Matter has functionality which emerges when the matter forms. Carbon forms chains with itself. Other elements do this too, just not as well as carbon. So the division into organic and inorganic is predicated on the functionality of carbon catenation. So we end up having one domain of matter and any internal demarcation is going to be arbitrary according to characteristics of the matter.

The importance of dissection is lost on you.?
Puzzled.

Would i be right in assuming that the reason you only know what you know today is because somebody else, a pioneer before you dissected studied categorized and explained/made their findings accessible to you?

Paul.

No, a lot of the more oddball stuff I think of is my own thoughts though we stand on the shoulders of giants. I admit I'm a reductionist but I also see emergence as irreducible and so the claim about dissection is lost on me.

Take for instance the n-body problem; 1 body obviously has a very predictable motion, equally two bodies follow a predictable pattern of motion, but 3 bodies, 4 bodies or 5 and so on ?. No way.

I think you are standing on the edge of interesting things but I'm uncertain if you understand the implications to know what your next step will be. It will not be the same steps I take.

pfrankinstein · **#96** by **pfrankinstein** » Apr 03, 2011 8:45 pm

Paul Almond wrote: I have a question, pfrankinstein, and I think it is important to this discussion. Could you say exactly what you regard the word "evolution" as meaning, in the context in which it is being used by you, here?

The word "evolution" is Victorian slang for what Charles Darwin himself preferred to refer to as "descent with modification by means of Natural selection". It is Darwin's meaning of the word "evolution" that i use.

Paul.

Paul Almond · **#97** by **Paul Almond** » Apr 03, 2011 9:13 pm

pfrankinstein wrote:
Paul Almond wrote: I have a question, pfrankinstein, and I think it is important to this discussion. Could you say exactly what you regard the word "evolution" as meaning, in the context in which it is being used by you, here?

The word "evolution" is Victorian slang for what Charles Darwin himself preferred to refer to as "descent with modification by means of Natural selection". It is Darwin's meaning of the word "evolution" that i use.

Paul.

Does this mean that "evolution", in the sense that you are using the term here, involves:

1. random variation - some mechanism that produces versions of something that are based on some original version, but randomly altered in small ways.

2. selection - some mechanism that selects particular versions according to some criteria as the ones that will be used as the original versions on which further random variations will be based.

?

(Most people in this discussion would say that both of these elements are needed for a Darwinian evolution process.)

Bolero · **#98** by **Bolero** » Apr 04, 2011 12:26 am

Mr Almond, I admire your stamina, sir.

(I, OTOH, shall continue to watch from the sidelines and offer nothing useful, as I am utterly baffled by the OP's complete lack of coherent statements.)

pfrankinstein · **#99** by **pfrankinstein** » Apr 04, 2011 10:30 am

Bolero wrote:Mr Almond, I admire your stamina, sir.

(I, OTOH, shall continue to watch from the sidelines and offer nothing useful, as I am utterly baffled by the OP's complete lack of coherent statements.)

*The Bang Bang a single beginning denotes a single process, that single process = evolution.

The 'single process of evolution' can be dissected cleanly into three chapter phases by noting the total difference in both domain and type of material.

Are you with me so far?

Paul.

Fenrir · **#100** by **Fenrir** » Apr 04, 2011 10:57 am

*The Bang Bang a single beginning denotes a single process, that single process = evolution.

Could you expand on this? What is the selective mechanism determining whether the big bang bangs or not?

Are you with me so far?

No.

Paul.

not Paul.

One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Re: One bang one process.

Who is online