Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   update: freedom found, natural selection theory pushed aside
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 301 of 318 (481740)
09-12-2008 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by Syamsu
09-12-2008 9:29 AM


Re: Instants Not Decisions
No. Decisions are borne of instants. In each instant the different alternatives from that point in time all exist simultaneously such that perceptual moments are observed. The superposition of these transitive states is a conglomorate of all the available options. Thus the final outcome is neither a "decision" of your making nor a "decision" of any single one of any of the other entities that make up the holistic physical system in question.
Take your grocery shopping example. According to decisions theory you alone decide which items to purchase. But this ignores the different options available to the timeline sequencing of the various items in the shop that you may or may not buy. How do their decisions affect the eventual outcome? Why should the eventual decision be a product of your perceptual moment time sequence alone?
Instants theory sums over paths all of the possibilities from the perceptual moment perspective of all of the entities in question.
In laymans terms the final "decision" (and thus timeline taken) is a combination of all of the "decisions" of all of the entities involved. You, the eggs, the bread, the tinned tomatoes, cookies, peanut butter etc. etc. etc. all have an effective contribution with each entity weighted in terms of it's perceptual moment co-efficient.
Thus decisions are an illusion. Actually they are a sum over instants with regard to perceptual moments of all the entities that make up a given physical system.
I hope that is clearer? If not feel free to question. I am here to help.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Syamsu, posted 09-12-2008 9:29 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Syamsu, posted 09-12-2008 11:04 AM Straggler has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 302 of 318 (481743)
09-12-2008 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by Straggler
09-12-2008 10:08 AM


Re: Instants Not Decisions
But as before, your logic is not consistent with common knowledge about instants. You should first formalize the common knowledge, then try to make it fit. It is also not within my experience that decisions are borne of instants, so I have no evidence for it. Deciding alternatives that are in the future is the knowledge we use. We do not seem to use illusionary decisions borne of instances at al in common knowledge. But I like your idea of timelines, maybe you are getting somewhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Straggler, posted 09-12-2008 10:08 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by Straggler, posted 09-12-2008 11:31 AM Syamsu has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 303 of 318 (481747)
09-12-2008 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 302 by Syamsu
09-12-2008 11:04 AM


Re: Instants Not Decisions
You are clinging on desperately to your outmoded concept of decisions as the progressional quanta of time.
You experience instants. All of your decisions are made in instants. You cannot divorce the decision making process from the sequential instancing of time in perceptual moments.
How can you claim that the apparent "decision" of which peanut butter to purchase (for example) can viably disclude and discount the "decsions" of the jars of peanut butter themselves? Their instants and those of the shop and shopkeeper must also all be included in the calculation to make it complete and thus valid.
Do you think because you own a brain that the only instants woth perceptually momentualising are your own? What about the "freedom" of the rest of the system? The peanut butter also has a "choice" expressed in instants.
Instants theory is the only way to meaningfully conceptualise this. Decisions are but a poor mans aproximation. I am sure you will get there in the end.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by Syamsu, posted 09-12-2008 11:04 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by Syamsu, posted 09-12-2008 12:20 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 304 of 318 (481751)
09-12-2008 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by Straggler
09-12-2008 11:31 AM


Re: Instants Not Decisions
You should use the science theory subservient to the evidence of direct experience, but you are doing the reverse. You are also making common knowledge subservient to your theory, instead of the reverse.
In any case, if you would present an analysis of the logic of instants, as it is used in common knowledge, formalize it, derive general principles, clean it up to essential parts, then Im sure you would get something worthwile.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by Straggler, posted 09-12-2008 11:31 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Open MInd
Member (Idle past 1253 days)
Posts: 261
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 305 of 318 (481755)
09-12-2008 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by bluescat48
09-12-2008 9:06 AM


Re: Theory in science
If you did find such a thing I would say that the rock was moved there by bending under some older rocks. Now let us assume that you did find such a thing, what Theory would replace evolution? Can you think of any?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by bluescat48, posted 09-12-2008 9:06 AM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by Straggler, posted 09-12-2008 12:50 PM Open MInd has not replied

  
Open MInd
Member (Idle past 1253 days)
Posts: 261
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 306 of 318 (481757)
09-12-2008 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by Straggler
09-12-2008 9:18 AM


Re: Theory in science
I will ask you the same question, what theory would replace evolution if it was proven to be unsupported by future evidence? Is there anything? I am trying to point out that the concept of evolution is not a theory built on creativity. There were no other theories. All other theories are arguing on the type of evolution that took place. What if is becomes clear, based on evidence that you mentioned, that life could not have evolved at all! What new theory could possibly be considered scientific?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Straggler, posted 09-12-2008 9:18 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by Straggler, posted 09-12-2008 1:26 PM Open MInd has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 307 of 318 (481759)
09-12-2008 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 305 by Open MInd
09-12-2008 12:28 PM


Re: Theory in science
The common knowledge of instants is self evident and obvious to all. We all have direct experience of instants. Your denial of this is irrational and incomprehensible.
Consider the following - You "forget" your keys and are locked out. Did you decide to leave your keys inside? Obviously not. That would be stupid. Instead the instant at which this occurred was a sum over paths of the perceptual moment of both your "decision" and the "decision" of the keys in question. Taking into account the co-efficient of contradiction and weighting accordingly the keys get left behind.
Each instant is a dot on the ever branchiong timeline of perceptual moments.
How can the decisions theory account for the utterly stupid seeming decision to leave your keys behind? This everyday example shows the obvious flaws in your argument.
ANSWER: It cannot. Instants theory is the only viable solution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Open MInd, posted 09-12-2008 12:28 PM Open MInd has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by Syamsu, posted 09-12-2008 1:10 PM Straggler has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 308 of 318 (481766)
09-12-2008 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by Straggler
09-12-2008 12:50 PM


Re: Theory in science
You are still not getting it. You must use the actual phrases in common knowledge, the structure of them. So you should describe what a person might have said when forgetting their carkeys. Then analyze the logical structure of what is said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by Straggler, posted 09-12-2008 12:50 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by Straggler, posted 09-12-2008 1:29 PM Syamsu has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 309 of 318 (481768)
09-12-2008 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by Open MInd
09-12-2008 12:34 PM


Re: Theory in science
If all the evidence were different, if all the predictions of evolution had been found to be false, if all the corroborating strands of evidence pointed in a different direction to evolutionary theory.....
Then a different theory would be required.
Given that scientific theories are evidenced based it is impossible to say what an alternative theory would be without the alternative evidence.
Evolutionary theory is derived from evidence rather than merely being a preconceived philosophical interpretation of whatever evidence is available. Thus your question makes little sense without knowing what the nature of this "alternative evidence" might be?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Open MInd, posted 09-12-2008 12:34 PM Open MInd has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 310 of 318 (481769)
09-12-2008 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by Syamsu
09-12-2008 1:10 PM


Re: Theory in science
When I forget my house keys I usually say "Shit. I'm locked out"
This is obviously a consequence of instants theory and disproves the flawed notions of freedom and decisions that you are stubbornly clinging onto.
If only you would study instants theory you too would see. Open your mind. Open your heart (not literally).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by Syamsu, posted 09-12-2008 1:10 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 311 by Syamsu, posted 09-12-2008 1:53 PM Straggler has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 311 of 318 (481773)
09-12-2008 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 310 by Straggler
09-12-2008 1:29 PM


Re: Theory in science
That phrase seems to have no relationship to instants whatsoever.
Eddington who somebody else referenced also argued from experience. And then he said that the future is where randomness is, while the past is only one way. So you see the way I evidence and construct knowledge is an established practice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by Straggler, posted 09-12-2008 1:29 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by Straggler, posted 09-12-2008 2:14 PM Syamsu has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 312 of 318 (481777)
09-12-2008 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 311 by Syamsu
09-12-2008 1:53 PM


Re: Theory in science
In the instant my decsion making capacity was overturned by the perceptual moment. Thus resulting in my "forgotten" keys. Hence th phrase in question is evidence for my position.
Yes but Eddington was referring to the reality of past instants not decisions which he recognised as a consequence of perceptual moment mechanistic traversions in time. As is obvious if you study his work in detail. You obviously have not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by Syamsu, posted 09-12-2008 1:53 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Syamsu, posted 09-12-2008 2:52 PM Straggler has replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 313 of 318 (481786)
09-12-2008 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by Straggler
09-12-2008 2:14 PM


Re: Theory in science
I thought you didnt have a decisionmaking capacity, that it was an illusional effect of instants. That is exactly what many scientists say that free will is an illusion, for which there is no evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by Straggler, posted 09-12-2008 2:14 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by Straggler, posted 09-12-2008 6:19 PM Syamsu has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 314 of 318 (481791)
09-12-2008 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by Open MInd
09-11-2008 10:59 PM


Re: Theory in science
One way it was 'tested' was making a prediction about a fossil that was going to be found. According to the TOE, there was a transitional form between fish and amphibians that lived in a certain time period.
This group of scientists went to an area whose rocks were the proper age, and were the proper environment (shallow seaside), and found that fossil.
That was one way.. there were many other ways too. Forensic's is a very important part of biology though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Open MInd, posted 09-11-2008 10:59 PM Open MInd has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by Syamsu, posted 09-12-2008 4:47 PM ramoss has not replied

  
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 315 of 318 (481799)
09-12-2008 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by ramoss
09-12-2008 3:48 PM


Re: Theory in science
And the paper referenced in the original posting substantiates that evolution occurs through reasoned and informed decisions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by ramoss, posted 09-12-2008 3:48 PM ramoss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by Straggler, posted 09-12-2008 6:21 PM Syamsu has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024