Posted on 08/17/2005 4:37:36 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
You are identifying matter with mass, which is, however, basically a number, while energy has to do with relationships among masses, or matter in motion over time, whicgh is determined by measuring the motion of matter. So I guess it all boils down to numbers. Thank you Pythagoras, for that insight.
You are right about that, because Darwin is a naturalist who is working from obervation of actual things. It is those who carry the matter backwards in time, before we have any evidence, who must resort to randomness. What5 he relies on is what most of us would call accidental. Natural selection is somewhat like what happens on a busy freeway. Only the fittest make it through, but it is not because those who get in accidents are less skilled drivers but that "things happen" which are beyond skill to control.
Actually, Robby, I don't have the least problem with Pythagoras' insights. I'm tickled (and so happy) that you even recall his name. That is a rare thing, nowadays.
So, does this mean I don't have to write to you tomorrow?
Signing off for now, and wishing you a good night! And a sleep tight! And a thank you for writing!
So good night again!
Now, of course, thanks to quantum mechanics, we know better. We know there are things that are truly random. That is, they are unpredictable no matter how much information we have about the present.
(As an asside, Ken Miller argues that this fact of the universe is what makes free will possible, and I think he's right).
I'm no biophysicist, but it is my understanding that genetic mutations can be tied to quantum mechanics. Thus we can say with confidence that genetic mutations are, in fact, truly random, at least from the perspective of any temporal being like man.
(On the other hand, nothing is unpredictable to a being unconstrained by time, like God. This is how Molina resolved the paradox of predestination and free will, unfortunately not to the Dominicans' satisfaction).
It's certainly true, however, that the Meyer paper was a wild departure from the usual fare for that publication. That much we all can agree on. Beyond that, we'll have to wait for the facts to shake out. If they ever do.
I strongly agree that intelligent design is not anti-evolution. It is also not an origin of life hypothesis. Nor does it have articles of faith, doctrine or Holy writ.
Seems to me that most of the hostility towards the ID hypothesis is actually hostility towards creationism, religion or God.
Your suggestion for handling ID in publicly funded schools sounds great to me! My last suggestion was an elective colloquiam where students could raise, research and debate issues of their own chosing under a teacher's supervision for credit. But that would be more of a "free-for-all" than a learning experience, such as an orderly approach to scientific cosmology.
To unravel a point made late on the thread though I'd like to offer this link to relativistic mass. Of a truth, energy and mass transform - but over the years some scientists have become used to using the term energy instead of relativistic mass. Personally, I think they confuse the issue by doing this (especially wrt relativity).
Likewise, when speaking of the critical density of the universe, 5% is ordinary matter, 25% dark matter and 70% dark energy. Notice how the terms interchange. Simply put, matter occupies space and has mass. Matter can be transformed to energy by annihilation and can also be created by energy.
Jeepers, betty boop. You made so many great points on your initial post and the discussion following - there is so much I'd like to say, but it's late so I'll have to close for now.
| Example #1: No one has ever denied a scientists credentials based on whether or not he was creationist. |
| Example #2: The anti-evolutionist's conspiracy theory has yet to be backed up with anything other than conjecture. |
Why this is a fallacy of induction: You are not omniscient. You are not aware of the evidence cited on FR alone, let alone all the evidence supplied by "anti-evolutionists" all over the world throughout human history. You have created another postmodern absolute by fiat. I thought evolutionists at least pretended to be concerned with the evidence.
There. I've helped you discover two of five. Do you think you can figure out the other three or will you need some more help? Maybe you can ask general_re.
I think this is a bit of a simplification, and perhaps misleading. Quantum errors affect things like the accuracy of the hard drive in your computer, but error detection and correction algorithms maintain the integrity of the data.
There are error detection and correction mechanisms in cells also. This is a great time to be doing research. There are so many puzzles.
Wow Heartlander. What a depressing article! Talk about the politicization of science! Thanks so much for the link.
I think you've got things backwards here. Logic is just a lingusitic tool that humans invented and kept using because they found that it aids thier reasoning. It's not a property of the universe - it's a technique. The universe would go on without it.
That's what I conclude, anyway, but then my philsophical loyalties lie with Wittgenstein rather than Athens.
Hi anguish! Thanks for the insights regarding randomness. The computer analogy strikes me as an apt one. Here we see dynamic relations between a “selection parameter” and apparently random processes. The selection parameter is not established by the computer system, but by a human programmer. Within its constraints, the computer is able to generate random processes conducing, in the end, to the goal or “limit” of the selection parameter. I gather this is what Aristotle called the “final cause,” or limit (peras). In Metaphysics, he writes:
“The final cause is an end which is not for the sake of anything else, but for the sake of which everything is. So if there is to be a last term of this kind, the process will not be infinite.... Those who maintain an infinite series do not realize that they are destroying the very nature of the Good, although no one would try to do anything if he were not likely to reach some limit (peras); nor would there be reason in the world (nous), for the reasonable man always acts for the sake of an end — which is a limit.”
Analogizing further to certain fundamental laws of the Universe, Ted Swenson writes: “The first and second laws of thermodynamics are not ordinary laws of physics. Because the first law, the law of energy conservation, in effect, unifies all real-world processes, it is thus a law on which all other laws depend. In more technical terms, it expresses the time-translation symmetry of the laws of physics themselves. With respect to the second law, Eddington (1929) has argued that it holds the supreme position among all the laws of nature because it not only governs the ordinary laws of physics but the first law as well. If the first law expresses the underlying symmetry of the natural world (that which remains the same) the second law expresses the broken symmetry (that which changes). It is with the second law that a basic nomological understanding of end-directedness, and time itself, the ordinary experience of then and now, of the flow of things, came into the world….” [Rod Swenson, “Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Behavior”]
In short, natural processes (and seemingly computational processes also) seem to be generated by a dynamic synergy between that which changes (e.g., the apparently random) and that which remains the same (e.g., the “selection parameter,” or limit). In a certain sense, the random in your excellent example may be only apparently random (as I keep saying), because “pure” randomness would be utterly unconstrained, i.e., unlimited and therefore, infinite; but the randomness that we observe in your computer example seemingly is constrained by a limit. Or so it seems to me.
The great mathematician/philosopher Leibnitz understood that in order for things to happen in nature, there had to be something that is conserved, and also something that can vary. Later, the first and second laws of thermodynamics would formalize Leibnitz’s observation – which he may have picked up from that great pre-Socratic philosopher of flux and permanence, Heraclitus (5th century B.C.).
You wrote: “The Boeing 777 engines have fan blades that evolved inside a computer.”
Fascinating! Still, their evolution was seemingly end-directed to satisfy the constraints of the “selection parameter,” or limit, which human intelligence programmed, or designed, into the computer….
Just more wool-gathering on my part…. Thanks so very much for writing, anguish!
Gee....that's too bad, moatilliatta! :^) Too much positivism, and not enough realism there.... IMHO FWIW.
He inadvertantly inspired a lot of positivists, but he must turn in his grave every time he's described as one.
I never said my post didn't include logical fallacies. I just asked you to point them out.
Both you and the author of the post I addressed jumped on my post for the fallacies it contained rather than considering the message. Since it was obvious you both wanted a 'logical fallacy war' I wanted to verify that either or both of you actually knew how to differentiate a logical fallacy from a disagreeable proposition before directing you to the Web page I took umbrage with and asked you to apply your abilities of logical critique to the logic contained therein. I am now asking you to do that.
As for my sig, it is a simple expression of the observations I've made about frequent creation science arguments. It was not intended as a formal statistical argument. It is my opinion, based on my experience and true to that extent.
By the way, a fallacy does not guarantee the inaccuracy of a conclusion, just that the logical structure used cannot be relied on to guarantee the conclusion's accuracy.
Good grief.
I'm not human, I'm a musical instrument programmed to communicate to humans through analog tones converted to electromagnetic waves. I am the embodiment of the two slit experiment.
As a side note, throwing logical fallacies around without acknowledging their limitations can give the appearance of intellectual superiority.
I gather this is what Aristotle called the “final cause,” or limit (peras)The selection parameters indeed limits the possible evolutionary pathways the system explores, just like in nature where parameters like energy supply/usage, predation etc limits biological evolution.
In short, natural processes (and seemingly computational processes also) seem to be generated by a dynamic synergy between that which changes (e.g., the apparently random) and that which remains the same (e.g., the “selection parameter,” or limit)Almost correct, to the point it may serve as a fair generalization. However, selection parameters also change, albeit not as quickly as the random parts. The massive parallelism in a evolutionary system changes the environment continually, which in turn means shifting selective parameters. After all, evolution is not about individuals as much as it's about populations.
In a certain sense, the random in your excellent example may be only apparently random (as I keep saying), because “pure” randomness would be utterly unconstrained, i.e., unlimited and therefore, infinite; but the randomness that we observe in your computer example seemingly is constrained by a limit.Well, I think your "purity" of randomness is mostly esthetics. While being contrained, a random variable between zero and one still has an infinite number of possible states.
Still, their evolution was seemingly end-directed to satisfy the constraints of the “selection parameter,” or limit, which human intelligence programmed, or designed, into the computer….It was indeed end-directed - in the sense that they decided that the most fit (the most efficent) "individuals" were more successful in transfering their "genes" to the next generation. Had it not been directed this way, we'd hardly call the process "evolutionary" but rather just "random".
My point was that random processes are, not by themselves but together with selection, indeed generating purposeful outcomes. If the selection parameter is set by nature and called gravity, or if it's set by an engineer and called $maximum_volume, is beside the point.
Actually, anguish, I think that evolution is about the "population of one" -- the Universe itself. The peras is therefore universal.
Of course, Darwinian evolutionary theory only looks at organic systems on one teensy part of the Universe....
Thanks so much for writing!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.