One bang one process.

Discussions on astrology, homeopathy and superstition etc.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

MacIver";p="1336865 wrote:No, the TRUE secret is that the universe is just a single cell in a much larger organism. :snooty:


No, no, no - the One True Secret is that the Universe is just a space between 2 quarks in a bigger, more glorious, and infinitely candy-laden universe.

PS it rains honey there - science fact.
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
Nostalgia
Posts: 9266
Joined: Feb 28, 2010 7:53 pm
Country: Earth

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Nostalgia »

Hmm, sounds tasty.

I am worried about the size and quantity of bees required to make precipitation honey based however.
We are alive, so the universe must be said to be alive. We are its consciousness as well as our own. We rise out of the cosmos and see its mesh of patterns, and it strikes us as beautiful. And that feeling is the most important thing in all the universe.
User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs-tl6GBOBo[/youtube]
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/
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

Paul Almond";p="1336507 wrote:
pfrankinstein";p="1336450 wrote:
Paul Almond";p="1336435 wrote:The mechanism of Darwinian evolution can be understood without reference to biology. For example, a computer program can be set up with various parameters that determine its behaviour. Copies of this program can be made with slightly different parameters, and tested, in a process similar to natural selection, with the best programs being kept and used as the basis for later variations. Evolution is a well-defined process that can be understood in a variety of contexts. You are not offering any well-defined process. You are offering pretentious word salad.


Thanks for your input Paul. Dissection of the single chain of evolution from bang to now is well defined.

Paul.

eh?


I propose that the laws of physics and chemistry are the first primitive selective agent working in the universe. In your opinion can a computer program be written for the same?

Paul.
User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

pfrankinstein";p="1337048 wrote:I propose that the laws of physics and chemistry are the first primitive selective agent working in the universe.


That really means nothing at all, Paul. The laws of physics aren't 'selecting' - there's no process whereby the results of such a selection would produce a type of order that is commensurately 'better' at whatever it is supposedly selecting for.

Recall that in biological evolution the selection is towards increased reproductive success - there's a clear mechanism that ratchets up and can produce a result that continues being selected for.

This 'laws of physics and chemistry' notion does not have such a means of feeding back on itself. Whatever it is you suggest the laws of physics produce is not being iterated out on a generational level retaining information that improves its selectability.


pfrankinstein";p="1337048 wrote:In your opinion can a computer program be written for the same?


A computer program could, in theory, be written that models all the physical forces - but as I mentioned in numerous prior threads, if you ran exactly these forces from scratch, you wouldn't arrive at the result today - the universe would certainly appear different, and could have fundamentally different properties.
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/
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

Spearthrower";p="1336625 wrote:Amidst Paul's editing of a previous post and confusion stemming from the errors in his use of the quote function, I still found this nugget of confused thinking that's at the base of Paul's claims:

Course there is descent, knowledge is inherited.


Inherited knowledge? Babies today are born with the knowledge of their ancestors?

When you appreciate what inheritance actually means, you'll see not only why this is wrong, but also why your analogy is broken.


Baby's are born with a certain amount of instinctive knowledge yes, but that is now what actually meant.

As a child grows up he learns from books and/or computers, knowledge gained from books/pc is often knowledge that been passed down from previous generations.

Hence the child inherits knowledge.

Knowledge is passed down through generations, as it does so that knowledge is often fine tuned, modified.

Paul.

Oh Also lets not forget the instruction for our own personal biology , DNA counts as biological knowledge.
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

Spearthrower";p="1336156 wrote:
pfrankinstein";p="1336132 wrote:
Spearthrower";p="1336129 wrote:
pfrankinstein";p="1335934 wrote:
If it was more than just an opinion, and his/your opinion is factually based, then by all means present those facts.

Will you set about telling me what 'evolution' is, or will you tell me what 'biological evolution' is?

Be totally accurate in your choice of words, best science foot forward now hack; what is 'evolution'?

Paul. :popcorn:



Evolution: a gradual change in state, often from a simple form to a more complex one.


And the mechanism for your gradual change in state?

Paul.



Eh?

Care to specify what we're talking about first? Evolution isn't a force in the universe, it's the result of other forces. If we're talking about the evolution of a star, then gravity is the initial mechanism.


Time is also an initial mechanism. What about outcome, the end result, chemistry, physics.

Paul.
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

hackenslash";p="1336518 wrote:
pfrankinstein";p="1336431 wrote:Science and mankinds artefacts evolve by 'descent [down through generations and time] modification and by means of cognitive selection. That is a science fact, an observation, nothing philosophical about the op. No equivocation of any word or term.


Factually incorrect. While science can be said to descend, in the sense that new understanding can be the product of older understanding, actually arising from it (in the sense that Special Relativity was born of Maxwell's field equations and their implications), artefacts do not beget artefacts. New artefacts arise from greater understanding. There is no sense in which artefacts give birth to new artefacts. The knowledge that produces these artefacts can be figuratively said to evolve, or descend, but the artefacts themselves do not.


Yes, the evolution of mankind's artefacts differers from that of biological evolution in so far as they themselves do not reproduce. Reproduction is done by proxy and takes place in the mind of the designer.

Paul.
User avatar
Spearthrower
Posts: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

pfrankinstein";p="1337143 wrote:
Spearthrower";p="1336625 wrote:Amidst Paul's editing of a previous post and confusion stemming from the errors in his use of the quote function, I still found this nugget of confused thinking that's at the base of Paul's claims:

Course there is descent, knowledge is inherited.


Inherited knowledge? Babies today are born with the knowledge of their ancestors?

When you appreciate what inheritance actually means, you'll see not only why this is wrong, but also why your analogy is broken.


Baby's are born with a certain amount of instinctive knowledge yes, but that is now what actually meant.

As a child grows up he learns from books and/or computers, knowledge gained from books/pc is often knowledge that been passed down from previous generations.

Hence the child inherits knowledge.


No, the child LEARNS knowledge - in the same way that other animals learn from their environment.

By definition, this is not inheritance as I already said - it's the opposite of inheritance.



pfrankinstein";p="1337143 wrote:Knowledge is passed down through generations, as it does so that knowledge is often fine tuned, modified.


But your analogy resides on the method of inheritance being the actual process - this clearly is not.



pfrankinstein";p="1337143 wrote:Oh Also lets not forget the instruction for our own personal biology , DNA counts as biological knowledge.


It's not 'knowledge' that's being passed down there, either.
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: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

pfrankinstein";p="1337167 wrote:
Spearthrower";p="1336156 wrote:
pfrankinstein";p="1336132 wrote:
Spearthrower";p="1336129 wrote:

Evolution: a gradual change in state, often from a simple form to a more complex one.


And the mechanism for your gradual change in state?

Paul.



Eh?

Care to specify what we're talking about first? Evolution isn't a force in the universe, it's the result of other forces. If we're talking about the evolution of a star, then gravity is the initial mechanism.


Time is also an initial mechanism. What about outcome, the end result, chemistry, physics.

Paul.



Time is a mechanism? :doh:

The end result is Physics and Chemistry which you've already asserted are the selection forces? :doh:
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: 33888
Joined: Feb 25, 2010 6:11 pm
Country: Thailand
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: One bang one process.

Post by Spearthrower »

pfrankinstein";p="1337202 wrote:
hackenslash";p="1336518 wrote:
pfrankinstein";p="1336431 wrote:Science and mankinds artefacts evolve by 'descent [down through generations and time] modification and by means of cognitive selection. That is a science fact, an observation, nothing philosophical about the op. No equivocation of any word or term.


Factually incorrect. While science can be said to descend, in the sense that new understanding can be the product of older understanding, actually arising from it (in the sense that Special Relativity was born of Maxwell's field equations and their implications), artefacts do not beget artefacts. New artefacts arise from greater understanding. There is no sense in which artefacts give birth to new artefacts. The knowledge that produces these artefacts can be figuratively said to evolve, or descend, but the artefacts themselves do not.


Yes, the evolution of mankind's artefacts differers from that of biological evolution in so far as they themselves do not reproduce. Reproduction is done by proxy and takes place in the mind of the designer.

Paul.



Fallacy of equivocation.
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/
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

Spearthrower";p="1337088 wrote:
pfrankinstein";p="1337048 wrote:I propose that the laws of physics and chemistry are the first primitive selective agent working in the universe.


That really means nothing at all, Paul. The laws of physics aren't 'selecting' - there's no process whereby the results of such a selection would produce a type of order that is commensurately 'better' at whatever it is supposedly selecting for.


I beg your pardon, the laws of physics and chemistry dictate the way our universe interacts and looks, that is by all acounts "A" something being selected for. That is this universe is of " a type that allows" certain types of phenomenon to exist, a NICHE.

Sometime ago you asked me to explain what i believed 'natural selection' to be. My answer to your question was from the broadest of perspectives. Do you remember my answer, probably not.

Between the type of niche environment and the evolving organism a selection is made, selection in the case of 'Natural selection' is related to survival of the fittest.

So now you ask what is being selected for in the sphere of the inorganic, the answer is everything that is in it, and the outcome of every interaction.

Now we are in the business of exploring the possibility that the bb started one process of evolution. We are looking to see if the white light before the blue perspex is placed in its way is the ancestor of Darwinian evolution.

To attempt to see it one must broaden out the meaning of 'niche environment' and not relate everything to do with evolution to biology.

Natural selection is a constant working force. Should an asteroid impact our Earth and all life be destroyed the NS would no longer be at work. Now look to our 'solar system', Primal selection [physics chemistry] also working constantly.

Paul.
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

Spearthrower";p="1337578 wrote:
pfrankinstein";p="1337202 wrote:
hackenslash";p="1336518 wrote:
pfrankinstein";p="1336431 wrote:Science and mankinds artefacts evolve by 'descent [down through generations and time] modification and by means of cognitive selection. That is a science fact, an observation, nothing philosophical about the op. No equivocation of any word or term.


Factually incorrect. While science can be said to descend, in the sense that new understanding can be the product of older understanding, actually arising from it (in the sense that Special Relativity was born of Maxwell's field equations and their implications), artefacts do not beget artefacts. New artefacts arise from greater understanding. There is no sense in which artefacts give birth to new artefacts. The knowledge that produces these artefacts can be figuratively said to evolve, or descend, but the artefacts themselves do not.


Yes, the evolution of mankind's artefacts differers from that of biological evolution in so far as they themselves do not reproduce. Reproduction is done by proxy and takes place in the mind of the designer.

Paul.



Fallacy of equivocation.


I'm beginning to believe that regressing the Darwinian process back to its roots and forward is beyond you. Are you working from the premise that it shouldn't be done or that it can't?

Paul.
Last edited by pfrankinstein on Jun 04, 2012 3:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

Spearthrower";p="1337576 wrote:
pfrankinstein";p="1337167 wrote:
Spearthrower";p="1336156 wrote:
pfrankinstein";p="1336132 wrote:
And the mechanism for your gradual change in state?

Paul.



Eh?

Care to specify what we're talking about first? Evolution isn't a force in the universe, it's the result of other forces. If we're talking about the evolution of a star, then gravity is the initial mechanism.


Time is also an initial mechanism. What about outcome, the end result, chemistry, physics.

Paul.



Time is a mechanism? :doh:

The end result is Physics and Chemistry which you've already asserted are the selection forces? :doh:


It is everything about the scenario that makes it look the way it does.

Paul. :dance:
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

Spearthrower wrote:When you appreciate what inheritance actually means, you'll see not only why this is wrong, but also why your analogy is broken.
No, the child LEARNS knowledge - in the same way that other animals learn from their environment.

By definition, this is not inheritance as I already said - it's the opposite of inheritance.


:lol: The opposite of inheritance being what exactly?

Rubbish.

I'm typing this very slowly so you might better understand.

We pass on more than just out genes we also pass on knowledge.

We inherit genes we alos inherit knowledge. Genes are stored in our biology, knowledge in books and computers.


Paul.
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

Spearthrower";p="1337578 wrote:
pfrankinstein";p="1337202 wrote:
hackenslash";p="1336518 wrote:
pfrankinstein";p="1336431 wrote:Science and mankinds artefacts evolve by 'descent [down through generations and time] modification and by means of cognitive selection. That is a science fact, an observation, nothing philosophical about the op. No equivocation of any word or term.


Factually incorrect. While science can be said to descend, in the sense that new understanding can be the product of older understanding, actually arising from it (in the sense that Special Relativity was born of Maxwell's field equations and their implications), artefacts do not beget artefacts. New artefacts arise from greater understanding. There is no sense in which artefacts give birth to new artefacts. The knowledge that produces these artefacts can be figuratively said to evolve, or descend, but the artefacts themselves do not.


Yes, the evolution of mankind's artefacts differers from that of biological evolution in so far as they themselves do not reproduce. Reproduction is done by proxy and takes place in the mind of the designer.

Paul.



Fallacy of equivocation.


Descending generations do so on the back of time, time being the first thing that everything descends down.

Broadening out the taken for granted meaning of a word and brining that meaning to the fore is not Fallacy of equivocation, the word does not lose its meaning or gain a new one, what is does gain is a new understanding for broader usage .

Paul.
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

We are looking to see if the white light before the blue perspex is placed in its way is the ancestor of Darwinian evolution.

To attempt to see it one must broaden out the meaning of 'niche environment' and not relate everything to do with evolution to biology.


"Artefacts do not reproduce so thats not evolution"!

YES they do, not in the biological sense, the evolution of our artefacts happens on a different level from that of biology.

Reproduction is done externally by cognitive means.

Paul.
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

pfrankinstein wrote:Oh Also lets not forget the instruction for our own personal biology , DNA counts as biological knowledge.


spearthrower wrote:It's not 'knowledge' that's being passed down there, either.


Biological Knowledge and instruction gained by experience from ones ancestors tha knows. 8-)










Paul. :lol:
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

http://youtu.be/ZsZgoANROBE

Off topic. Cheered me up though.

Paul.
pfrankinstein
Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 27, 2011 12:42 am
Name: paul
Country: UK

Re: One bang one process.

Post by pfrankinstein »

Are we saying it shouldn't be done or it can't be done?

A single chain of evolution from bang to now.

Dissection gives us three chapters of evolution.

A new thought occurs to me:Three chapters = Three generations of the one process.

Think with a wheel within a wheel sort of train.

Paul.
Locked