Moving towards an ID mechanism.

That is indeed the conclusion I am trying to avoid for ID. There is way too much physics for me here to deal with. I am coming from the side of using such a collapse to ALSO be artifically selected in biological tissue. It is the only strech I know of that does the distance and goes but I have never been able to think this link completely in one thought, so I have reason to distrust both, the conscious collapse and the indentured limits to natural selection caused by artifical selections of primates and other tool users.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-21-2005 07:15 AMThis message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-21-2005 07:18 AM

If it was really true it would permit one to try to build DNA computers (Winfree) to do that naturally quantum wise. This sounds like science fiction to me but who knows, maybe even my sense irreality is real.

They(objects) do incorporate the whole poulation thinking universe of biology, yes?If yes, then next, does stochasticID exist?If yes- then by what maths .
??????????????????????????????
If no-Randman vs Cavediver??This is a possible thought where the populations of biology include the brains of the humans doing QM(humans are primates, there is a common ancestor, lateral gene transfer exists, etc) but if randomID has some significant probability there is not really the same question as if IDdesigners exist, here. There may still be some however.The confusion would lie then in the information aspect of supramolecular statics, later to be discussed as dynamized given some value to absolute torque(relative to invariants in any givable design inter mutation alia), provided said maths exist.Measurement and Observation may not be a part of Provine’s post-60s evolutionary biology but they are of worthy size in view of experimental philosophy. It is possible that I am aposteriori mistaken but this way I can not be in fault of inappropriate a priori probabilities in the plyed incidence geometry within.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-28-2005 05:11 PM

You said

quote:

---

the neat thing about QM is that the double-split experiment and related delayed-choice experiments are experiments with real objects, not just mathematical concepts.

---

I have heard that before. Last Christmass both of my brothers were talking about this stuff. I really didnt care then. I guess I must this year.I was reading CaveDiver's post to apply to objects, no matter whether it is the whole universe or a part of it that Mick wanted to have out of the question, but CDiver is very adroit with words, so let him speak himself, a for...In his words

quote:

---

physical interpretation of the mathematics

---

is broad enough however to apply to any findable application in biology of QM at least if the philosophy of math extends to Kronecker vs Cantor say when not Brouwerisms I think.I thought I had seen some indication in the questioning after WoundKing gave the reference earlier, that there was a lack of appreciation for the possibility that design could be random as well( stochasticID might find a strange bedfellow with netural gene expressions etc.). My own idea of artifical selection of natural selections (being reedited to become clearer in the Malthus essay
http://www.students.tc3.edu/bmcfall/fripge.htm
via ecosystem engineering) can be as random as we can make machines approach pure chances is of this kin indeed. I do not have any evidence that ID has been so supposed or proposed, but if one limited oneself to the application of philosophy of math to particle combination enumerations, whether this is recoverd by information techniques or mere brain power, the negative side of Cavedivers' turned possible androidness, need not be entered on a highly critical level, the specifics that he and you are addressing I leave to the both of you until and unless I can partition Boltzman better than the guy himself. What I understand that he writes, I rather like.I assumed the IDmechanism being approached to be one in life if it does exist.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-28-2005 08:47 PMThis message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-28-2005 08:51 PM

There was some possible room here
EvC Forum: Distinguishing Baramins
but I have not gotten far enough to reliably criticize Russel on Cantor on limits, Dedekind on Cantor on real numbers, or Dauben on Cantor's personality.The determinism would be ruled by a higher order catastorphe set of Thom with topological conditions that would be unknown to us today that provide the place to space in the redundant numbers that physics still does not use since it strove for a single dimenional analysis. I am sure there is philosophy about it but the question of where is the good room that is free to Intelligent Design if God needs latitude as well as longitude?... is a vaild question indeed.Sometimes I wonder if the Gibbs applied to Boscovich in terms of neutral mutations might bind said conditions practically.I sleep on the idea that this would solve the difference of opinion between Rene Thom and Francis Crick. Of course I do not know. If so then the cross space and time differential equations of macrothermodynics would score the text describing the same but TOE means theory of evolution not theory of everything to me here. I do not see how ID can move to a mechanism if only operates with a physical teleology no matter the idol freedem idillic nonetheless.The place is in some form of a turtle that remands a real physical difference of numberclasses genetically. I do not know if these exist. I do know that turtles have barbels and perhaps they really exist in a constant Hausdorf dimension of ordertypes that are represented by different sets of real numbers in different demes but that is streching it even for me.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-29-2005 05:16 PMThis message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-29-2005 05:23 PM

Ok, great I wont stop at this place. I undestand "where you are coming from."I would love to see some actual applied math use of Cantor's real number progression (A,B,C,...L) that Dauben
http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles/4740.html
restricted towards a discussion of Frege. Perhaps there are some and I just do not know.In line with this thread prior, Cantor thought of opticks as a use for his numbers and Thom considered caustics
Images with caustics by Henrik Wann Jensen
to apply in the condition it was all light in the form, whether moved or stationary.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-29-2005 09:23 PM

It's no water off my back, back in one, two....