Page 80 of 231

Re: One bang one process.

Posted: Jan 13, 2022 8:43 pm
by Spearthrower
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.

Re: One bang one process.

Posted: Jan 13, 2022 8:58 pm
by pfrankinstein
[quote="scott1328";p="2778909"]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.[/quote]

Thanks for that alas no time.

Did either of them propose a universal mechanism?

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

Re: One bang one process.

Posted: Jan 13, 2022 9:03 pm
by scott1328
[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2778913"][quote="scott1328";p="2778909"]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.[/quote]

Thanks for that alas no time.

Did either of them propose a universal mechanism?

https://youtu.be/-8bqQ-C1PSE[/quote]

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.

Re: One bang one process.

Posted: Jan 13, 2022 9:11 pm
by hackenslash
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.

Re: One bang one process.

Posted: Jan 13, 2022 9:13 pm
by hackenslash

Re: One bang one process.

Posted: Jan 13, 2022 9:50 pm
by pfrankinstein
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.
[quote="Spearthrower";p="2778912"]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.[/quote]

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

Re: One bang one process.

Posted: Jan 13, 2022 9:58 pm
by pfrankinstein
[quote="hackenslash";p="2778915"]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.[/quote]

No I'm flagging.

The big bang, a fraction of implosion to start?

Paul.

Re: One bang one process.

Posted: Jan 13, 2022 10:04 pm
by hackenslash
Who said the big bang started?

Re: One bang one process.

Posted: Jan 13, 2022 10:08 pm
by scott1328
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

Re: One bang one process.

Posted: Jan 13, 2022 10:12 pm
by hackenslash
It's a nice theory. It needs new physics, but we already know we need new physics.

Re: One bang one process.

Posted: Jan 13, 2022 10:57 pm
by pfrankinstein
[quote="scott1328";p="2778909"]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.[/quote]

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.

Re: One bang one process.

Posted: Jan 13, 2022 11:21 pm
by pfrankinstein
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.

Re: One bang one process.

Posted: Jan 13, 2022 11:26 pm
by hackenslash
[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2778927"]I measure it by itself.[/quote]

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.

Re: One bang one process.

Posted: Jan 13, 2022 11:34 pm
by hackenslash
[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2778925"]Pseudoscience though ... [/quote]

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?

Re: One bang one process.

Posted: Jan 14, 2022 12:15 am
by pfrankinstein
[quote="hackenslash";p="2778928"][quote="pfrankinstein";p="2778927"]I measure it by itself.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.

Re: One bang one process.

Posted: Jan 14, 2022 12:23 am
by hackenslash
You don't argue questions, and science isn't conducted by argument in any event. Now, about those questions. Present your sums.

Re: One bang one process.

Posted: Jan 14, 2022 12:51 am
by Greg the Grouper
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.

Re: One bang one process.

Posted: Jan 14, 2022 4:54 am
by Cito di Pense
[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2778927"]
Que the bloke getting slogged by a wet fish.
[/quote]

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.

Re: One bang one process.

Posted: Jan 14, 2022 5:14 am
by Spearthrower
[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2778913"][quote="scott1328";p="2778909"]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.[/quote]

Thanks for that alas no time.[/quote]


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.

Re: One bang one process.

Posted: Jan 14, 2022 5:16 am
by Spearthrower
[quote="pfrankinstein";p="2778918"]
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.[/quote]


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.