All about Brad McFall.

Lol. Duh! I don't know why I didn't figure this out on my own. So Brad Steven McFall, huh? Sounds funny. Sorry you feel this way. Remember, try working offline, and don't feel pressured to post everything you want to say all at once. Take your time. Clarity is important.

Hi Brad. I thought I'd better let you know that I wasn't actually debating anything with you; I was just discussing your writing style, method of posting, etc.I just wanted to make that clear since a large part of your post seemed to discuss another topic (or other topics). I was only concerned with helping you makes your posts a little clearer. I hope you didn't think I was arguing these other topics. I think reading your messages out loud before posting them is a good test of clarity, in general. Oh boy. Well, if you do, I will try to understand, but please do write with clarity in mind. Don't concern yourself with "completeness"; I would much rather you focus clearly on one point than many points at once.Also, feel free to take all the time you need (either on or offline), and try the reading aloud test. Hope these things help. Good luck!

Ok, thanks. I would've asked Brad but...you know. Well thanks again! I've been reading EvC for about that long, or perhaps a little longer, myself. By the time I finally posted, I was well and truly familiar with all the regulars like Percy, moose, schraf, Mammuthus, Mike, crash, Ned, Rrhain, etc. I also remember some old regulars who aren't around any more.It was actually kind of an odd feeling when I posted for the first time; obviously nobody here knew who the hell I was but I felt like I already knew all of them. I'm sure there are other lurkers who feel the same.Anyway, I was also familiar with Brad and long ago stopped trying to read his posts. But as I said, I feel kind of bad for him. He seems to go to a lot of trouble and I honestly think that, for the most part, it just isn't worth his while; I really don't think many people can be bothered giving his posts more than a quick "pan down" any more.So, now that I actually post here, I thought the least I could do is try to help him a bit. He seems to have become little more than the butt of an occasional joke (I've done it myself a few times), and from what I've seen, he usually takes it in fairly good humour, but still...Anyway, am I attacking the impossible? Probably. But hey, I never let a little thing like impossibility stop me before!

As Holmes, just said- this would be the perfect chance- well said.Chance however is not a THEORY for me.I'll explain this later rather easily by DIVIDING ABSTRACT SELECTION WITH FULL DIFFERENTIALS (that Wolfram tried instead to create a new science without this) into upward macrokinetics and reverse phenomenological information transfer. You probably know some "regulars" I might not have gotten my noodle around.

The first point will be the correspondence between Cantor and Dedkind on ?IF? %ALL% Greek notions had or had not to be abandoned or jetisoned upon 1800s knowledge and discussion. Cantor seems to have first said this MUST happen but appears to have moderated in words but not necessarily in thought this that Dedekind later "cut" for B.Russell. I dont know if Dauben can be trusted however as Wallace seemed to indicate otherwise to me.Then we might get into statistical distribtutions and INTERPRETATIONS of allometry. I am interested in the length between venomous snake eyes. If all of this continues we might try to relate it to notions of information but that is a bit ambituous even for me. I will reject Gould's Irsih Elk I guess ahead of time.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-06-2004 01:08 PM

OK, Brad. You answered my question by my read of this post. You DO have fun! How do God and you get along?Phatboy

swimingly, but I am trying to figure out if the biophysical DELUSION Gladyshev knows is or is not more than the illusion that appears to prevent others from having this much fun with me.

Do you mean this guy?Im fishing and swimming yet drowning in all of this! Quite refreshing for a change!
More googling brought this up: Uncles, maybe. Aunts? Never.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 09-06-2004 01:25 PM

Perhaps, but I would imagine you've conversed with most of the people I can think of, off the top of my head. Some posters that I haven't seen for some time would be ConsequentAtheist, Zhimbo, Rei and Quetzal.I was going to say TrueCreation, as well, but TC has been around in more recent days, just not as often.Your profile says you registered in December 2001. That's probably somewhere in the area of when I first started reading the forum. I don't recall exactly but I didn't become particularly familiar with the posters for some time anyway. By the time I was I think you were well and truly a regular here, so I doubt I can think of too many people that you haven't "gotten your noodle around."

As for post 125, I'm afraid I'm lost again. I recognize a couple of names but the rest just went over my head. Are we talking about dimensions now?

Yes, that's who it was.Here is my last e-mail FROM him. I have been too busy learning new stuff to reply.

quote:

---

From : ’ ‘
Sent : Tuesday, May 11, 2004 3:46 AM
To : "Brad McFall"
Subject : Re: Brad's ...

​

| | | Inbox

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Attachment : IJMPB1862004801-825.doc (0.07 MB)

​

Dear Brad,

​

I am sending you the abstract of my paper in IJMPB. You have

​

the copy of proof of this article.

​

Sincerely,

​

Georgi

​

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad McFall"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 7:00 PM
Subject: Re: Brad's ...

​

>
>
>
> >From: "’ ‘"
> >To: "Brad McFall"
> >Subject: Re: Brad's ...
> >Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 10:35:00 +0400
> >
> >05.05. 2004
> >
> >Dear Brad,
> >
> >This is my quote (from my site and my book) indeed! (Post: 332,
berberry).
> >
> >"During the last decades, an opinion has widely spread that there is >apparent contradiction between biological order and laws of physics -
> >particularly the second law of thermodynamics>. Besides, it is claimed
that
> >this contradiction
> >living systems by the methods of equilibrium thermodynamics>. The author
of
> >the present work states: if living systems are described in the framework
> >of
> >hierarchic equilibrium thermodynamics, this contradiction does not exist.
> >" .
> >
> >I would like to point out this quote is connected with the statement of
I.
> >Prigogine. The statement one can find in the caver (and in a text) of his
> >well-known monograph.
> GREAT!, this is what I had 'assumed'!!!!!!NOW I KNOW IT (for) FACT.
> >I said about the contradictions between classical thermodynamics (as this
> >believe some scientists) and "biological order and laws of physics -
> >particularly the second law of thermodynamics". Now, the law of temporal
> >hierarchies has been discovered and we can use the approaches of the
> >thermodynamics of quasi-closed systems.
>
> >Before my works, it was no
> >possibility to apply the equilibrium thermodynamics (quasi-equilibrium
> >thermodynamics, thermodynamics of quasi-closed systems) to investigate
the
> >open living systems.
> This is what all of use should (try, if "we" do not know it already)
> understand but it is likely all do not yet.
> >The situation with the thermodynamics is an analog of situation with the
> >entropy! There are different "types of thermodynamics". Scientists know
> >about this! I say, as a rule, about classical (equilibrium or
> >quasi-equilibrium thermodynamics).
> Thank You Very much!
> >I consider (I said about this before)
> Yes, you did.
> >it will be very useful if you
> >recommend to anybody, who would like to have a part in our discussion, to
> >have a look at any good textbook of physical chemistry.
> I still have two more weeks of school before I can start to really try to
> read your material. I will be looking HARD at your idea of which parts of
> lower levels influence chage at higher levels and I would like to try to
> discuss your refrence to Penrose but that is not something that I will
> likely be able to try to do for another month or so. Have a great day.
> Sincerely, Brad.

---

I thinnk I approve of the Ant reference again but I will be talking about Sisters and Dimensions in the next with TO-NY next below. The issue about that entomological species was philosophical(but also practical on a certain level of genetics knowledge of the history of heredity etc, having to do with say, in G.Gladshev's view -to give you something other than mine) that life is like Penrose said, a bunch of mathematical probabilities. In that sense I might be wrong about the cybnertics of sociobiology. But I doubt we will have that conversation here. Feel free to try. I was trying to reject Wiener's notions at that time that that was written but the correspondence with Georgi has changed some of these metaphysical neceesities for me at least. I hope you are interested in reading more of what Georgi wrote.I am in the quote with onE "<", G's got TW0">>" them, in this exemplar.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-08-2004 08:49 AM

Yep, I dont know if you remember me posting on cosmology and Humphrey's ideas of this universe but there and then I had suggested that the travel would be by changing the organisms that go into deep space rather than trying to think of humans going through a black hole. That is what I was doing here when I was really thinking about dimensions. The philosophical OR mathematical issue is somewhat about the DEFINTION OF DIMENSION. When Mandelbrot was working for IBM and trying to figure out if the noise on the phone was normally distribtued or not some other fractal dimension I had thought that the math context meant that there was really IN SCIENCE only one notion of dimension but it had various symbolicalical instatitations but later I came to understand that some scientists DO think that Hausdorf Dimension is a *different* dimension from some other dimension defintion. This somewhat confuses me but then again I do not swim very deep in pure math waters. Regardless I AM considering any way what Dauben said but I just dont know if I can trust this (as I dont the "logical" programming position of Wofram or Weiner's anti-relgious attitude etc)(Georg Cantor p74, "For the logical soundness of this reasoning, it is significant that Cantor's proof was apparently accepted without challenge...What was the meaning of dimension in certain pathological cases?"It seems to me that mutation and all the subtantive claims of Gould that Creationists never thought of a GOd making deformed phenotypes that if one puts ALL of the macrothermodynamic calculations INTO x of R ( "Genetic Recombination" pages 13 and 45 by Franklin W. Stahl University of Oregon with the subtitle 'Thinking About It in Phage and Fungi" ) then not only but also indeterminate space/time intersections could exist. These would need some defintion or set of postulates on diMENsion. If A and B were two Cantor real number sets then the angle between (for the same data) might work this for particular protein gene expressions AND find the strong inequalites. That I dont know and obviously I have no idea further about genetic re-engineering of this formation. I had speculated about it before but it has teeth today indeed. Some things grow and it is possible if this WERE Gould's notion of species equivalent of drift then indeed humans would manifest it scientifically even if mathematically it were improbable. I dont have sisterSSSSS so perhaps someone understanding this post with em might be able to give a better presentation of the same FLESH.Ok what did I just present? I offered a way in which TIME HEIRARCHIES might be built in the science of sister chromatid exchanges. We all learn that DNA replicates (in meiosis and mitosis) and during duplication another "copy" is made from that priorly existing. I suggest that the temporal strucutre that macrothermodynamics has described in macrokinetics is a RESULT of sister chromatid cross overs that in the history of genetics are little studed becuase the exchanges do not produce recombination differences. The issue will be to figure out what the population parameter it is that fleshs IN the small differences (some pathological indeed) mutation DIRECTIONS when not mutants themselves dissolve in the ideal case of no difference in the mapping of R from x onto and one to one.There are two steps here. One is the creation of the function macrokinetically that takes recombination frequencies and gets x. The other finds within this continuity temporal hieraries CAUSED by sister-sister exchanges. It is NOT the Chromosome Size that makes this space dimension but it would be approximate. I would first try to see if ANY math of phenomenological thermodynamics works in this scenario before I tied exactly the issue of dimension to it but it would qualify not only the levels within which the minimization would be sayable to exist but also the region beyond the flesh where , by projection, the reverse information flow might contibute in the kinetics of biolgical duration change in range change as advocated by a biogeographer from YALE commenting on Croizat.Perhaps I should have taken this content and worked it up again on my own before posting but I'm sure if your interested in disscussing any thing about dimensions , Greek, Pascalian, or Galtonian etc you will effectively have me get back to any thing I said in this post...er.thread! Are we having fun yet?

And what is this region? Is it found in the brain...beyond mere gray matter? As a theologian, I often speak of matters that contrast the predictable effects of flesh. Even some of the sisterSSS know what I am talking about. Do you mean to suggest that there would be a way to condense the essence of a Phatboy or a McFall into some sort of D.N.A. Soup which could be freezedried or otherwise preserved for the rigors of a long flight out there? I maintain that the only thing potentially faster than light would be the speed of a thought realized. I could imagine myself 100 light years hence, but I am only there in theory. The restraining factor of projecting human intelligence "out there" is in the limitations of our own bodies(flesh) to survive the high speeds necessary. Am I on your planet, Brad? BTW when you say Galtonian, do you mean this guy?

quote:

---

An explorer and anthropologist, Francis Galton is known for his pioneering studies of human intelligence. He devoted the latter part of his life to eugenics, i.e. improving the physical and mental makeup of the human species by selected parenthood

---

This message has been edited by Phatboy, 09-08-2004 01:23 PM

The "region beyond the flesh" would be 'group' selectable properties of demes, populations, guilds, couples, extreme behavior, etc etc while instead you might first try
http://EvC Forum: Starlight and Time---question that must be answered -->EvC Forum: Starlight and Time---question that must be answered
to get a sense of what I was trying to indicate in the big picture and as to Galton-the guy you named correctly indeed- I am quite interesting in the linguistic attempt of SJ Gould to Marshall the "smoothing" of one of his figures where INSTEAD I simply "read" the geometry on a smaller scale than Steven had pretended in the same body of data as you or I as to without this skin(ny).See also BSM in
EvC Forum: Evolution of complexity/information
The reply to TONY-DOES provide this base, thanks to the Russian input of Georgi, since this last post. How to &Measure& sister crossovers remains difficult I suppose, but I have not done a literature search on it, as of yet.The result is that this "resultant" is either a set of orthoganalites NOT priveldged by Gould's syntensis of Bird Color Patterns or a more ornate piecing relying on hintable thermal properties droped in throught this thread and not necessarily "in" the links.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-08-2004 03:52 PM

Can you understand this, that RAZD sent to me in another thread? I can and I could relate it to dimensions"" but perhaps you are more interested in the not only biological applications? Razd, is not "old school, but indeed I can see how to work with this information, can you?
in particular I would like to talk about the same information that this test might beable to retain in RAZD's info similarly?? any takers?
see
http://cdfc.rug.ac.be/.../sister_chromatid_exchange_test.htmThis message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-11-2004 11:17 AM