I was thinking about any sidebars that might emerge over the validity of the theory of evolution itself with regard to our previous sidebar on the fallacy of quantizing the continuum. Evolution debates tend to consume threads and I'm hoping this discussion stays on target.
I'm thinking if anyone wishes to return to that topic, then I'll kick off a separate thread - as long as that's ok with you.
I'm essentially only lurking here, but I don't see the need for a whole new thread over that. The fallacy of quantizing the continuum can be applicable in difficult cases of classifying certain species, because the boundries get fuzzy due to [gasp!] common descent and incomplete speciation. But I don't think that needs to be much of a distraction. Just something to keep in mind.
If the fallacy may apply (or be mentioned) in borderline cases of distinguishing between something living and not living, it would be relevant to this thread.
Oooopps! So very sorry to misunderstand you, A-G. But you know, I think this "fallacy of quantizing the continuum" is totally bogus anyway.
Anyhoot, I guess the point is I'm always glad to follow any proposal of yours. So let's keep the "evolution within the evolution" problem here where it presently lies, and hopefully "export" this "fallacy of quantizing the continuum" elsewhere. :^)
But not before I put in my two-cents worth on that question here. If we can "quantize space" (which seems to be what Planck had in mind, and all of quantum theory besides) then assuredly we can "quantize time" (as Planck recognized -- for we have both "Planck length" and "Planck time"). If what recent evidence proposes can be validated, then space and time are indeed "Lorentz transformable." We know that light can be imagined as both a particle and a wave; and also the same obtains with regard to particulate matter, whose "energy translation" is a waveform. The point is whether one chooses to consider any essential entity in terms of its particulate or of its waveform expression -- a mutually exclusive process -- and this decision ultimately depends on the practical requirements of the intended experiment. The experimenter -- "observer" -- decides which best answers to the requirements of the experimental problem he envisions.
So where's the "fallacy" when time can be viewed as "particulate" (as in Zeno's famous paradox), or as "waveform" in character? If the former, Achilles never beats the turtle. If the latter case, Achilles probably wins every time....
There's no problem in nature, so much as a "problem" pertaining to the observer, his position, and needs implied here. (Or so it seems to me. But then, maybe I'm just crazy.)
Talk about basic "asymmetry!" Yet it seems all "complementarities" (in the Bohr and Lorentz sense) can devolve into "ambiguous" or "paradoxical" situations like this. But isn't that what Heisenberg's indeterminacy principle is all about?