Evolution's Math and Observer Problems

Quantum theory and the Theory of Relativity flow from the mathematical equations that define these theories and connect them to the real world through experimental observations.The Theory of Evolution does not flow nor is it defined by mathematical equations but relies until observations. (There are many mathematical equations that have been associated with the Theory of Evolution but they do not flow directly from Evolution and are independent of it. Like ships the sail in the ocean they can sail under any flag.)The fact that the Theory of Evolution is based on observations then raises the issue of how reliable are these “observations”. In 1931 Kurt Godel proved two theorems that showed that showed the limitations of human theories in describing the “real world”:Godel”s “Incompleteness” are two theorems stating inherent limitations of all but the most trivial formal systems for arithmetic of mathematical interest.“The theorems are of considerable importance to the philosophy of mathematics. They are widely regarded as showing that Hilbert's program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all of mathematics is impossible, thus giving a negative answer to Hilbert's second problem. Authors such as J. R. Lucas have argued that the theorems have implications in wider areas of philosophy and even cognitive science as well as preventing any complete theory of everything from being found in physics, but these claims are less generally accepted.” From: Gdel's - WikipediaAt the core of the idea of “incompleteness” is the idea that our minds are inherently incapable of representing four dimensional reality with thought forms. What this actually means can be seen by performing the following thought experiment:Incompleteness Thought Experiment.Sitting on the table before me is a coffee cup. I now close my eyes and try to picture the cup. As I try to picture the cup within my mind I notice that I can only hold the image of the cup for a short time and that the image that I imagine is different than what I see when I look at the cup. The image of the cup that I imagine is static in time and more two dimensional than three. I cannot imagine the whole cup but only a view of it. Clearly the cup that exists in my mind is a distorted representation of the cup on the table. The cup in my mind is made up from my observations of the cup on the table. But the cup in my mind is not the same as the cup on the table. The cup on the table exists in real time and space while the cup in my mind exists in an entirely different way that is not a true representation.I now take a pen and paper and attempt to describe the cup. However, hard I try my description will be of the cup that is in my imagination and not the actual cup itself. This then is the problem with any description of nature based on observations. With the aid on mathematics we can describe some aspects of the cup and make predications based on laws of nature. But in the case of Evolution there are no mathematical measures inherit in its theory. This being the case we are left with only the distorted images in our minds to use as a basis for a written description of the natural world and how it works.The Gestalt psych term for what the mind in the case of incomplete information; is "the closure principle". It means that, when a person is given an incomplete set of data, his mind will fill in the gaps to make a whole picture so that he can interpret it.“The principle of closure applies when we tend to see complete figures even when part of the information is missing. Our minds react to patterns that are familiar, even though we often receive incomplete information. It is speculated this is a survival instinct, allowing us to complete the form of a predator even with incomplete information.”This was what Darwin faced when he set out to describe nature with the Theory of Evolution. Besides working with observations based on distorted images he needed a scenario or outline that would make sense of his observations. This is where he turned to Christian beliefs. In Christianity there is the idea that some survive and some become “extinct”. There is also the idea that changing one’s nature is the key to survival. This fit well with his observations and with a few adaptations became the Theory of Evolution.Besides being a math free zone the Theory of Evolution is also an “observer” free.Relativity is referenced to an “observer”. Changes in time and mass and velocity are “observed” by an observer. In quantum physics the state of a system remains indeterminate until it is “observed”. In atomic systems if the observer looks for a wave a wave is observed, if a particle is “looked” for then a particle and not a wave is observed. Strange but true as they say.However the Theory of Evolution has no provision for the role of an observer even though the changes that take place are at the atomic level where quantum realities should dominate. When one surveys the natural world and the changes that do occur one must notice beauty and function. If changes in the natural world were do to completely random mutations then the world around us would have more the beauty of a junk yard. Beauty in the natural world implies that these changes are driven by an observer.lack of a role for an observer is yet one more piece of evidence against the Theory of Evolution as a independent and valid description of the natural worldThe problem with the Theory of Evolution is that the theory itself lacks a mathematical foundation that would make it impartial of the “closure principle” and in its functioning it lacks a role for an observer.

You OP (opening post) as an interesting point of discussion buried in it.I think you should retitle something like: The Mathematics of Evolutionary Theory and focus on that.You post contains some basic errors that will only drag the topic all over the map so I suggest you remove those:Godel's theorems have nothing to do with this and there is nothing about what our minds are capable of in the core of his ideas.You can drop everying from In 1931 ... to "the form of a predator even with incomplete information." It is a lot of nice words but doesn't mean a dammed thing.The next paragraph regarding Darwin's use of Christianity is being discussed elsewhere and can be dropped from this thread.The concept of an observer in quantum mechanics has also been discussed elsewhere and our resident theoretical physicists have corrected your misunderstanding of that more than once. You can drop all references to that as you don't understand it and it isn't applicable here.What you can do is expand on what you would expect evolutionary models to be like if they were not "math free". Then it can be opened for discussion.

The concept of an observer in quantum mechanics has also been discussed elsewhere and our resident theoretical physicists have corrected your misunderstanding of that more than once. You can drop all references to that as you don't understand it and it isn't applicable here"resident theoretical physicists" really? I can't see any of this here.Corecting me where? Edited by no1nose, : No reason given.

Sorry, not you but others with that idea have been corrected.Cavediver and Son Goku are physicists.

"Sorry, not you but others with that idea have been corrected."What idea?Well, I have three university degrees with one in science. I have read about the meaning of Quantum physics over the past 10 years with one book by Niels Bohr in which he demonstrated the relevance of the principle of complementarity (which is the basic principle of Quantum Theory) to the macro world. Anything that I have said certainly doesn’t extend beyound what Bohr himself wrote. There is a wide spectrum of opinion as to what Quantum Mechanics is about. Those who would disagree with me would likely also disagree with Bohr too. Edited by no1nose, : No reason given.Edited by no1nose, : No reason given.

In any case, the QM stuff clutters up your OP unnecessarily.I'm off to sleep. Let's see if someone else wants this promoted.I won't let it out to play in it's current state.

You made this same assertion of the non-mathematical nature of the theory of evolution in another thread. Judging on the basis of how well you addressed the responses to your assertion there, I don't think discussion would fare any better here in this new thread.Also, you've already posted this identical OP over at IIDB, and it immediately degenerated into a pissing contest. This is why we review OP's here before promoting them. I sort of agree with Skepticalbip when he said, "Posting brain farts and demanding that others 'prove them wrong' is not science... it approaches trolling," and when you add to it your preference for unsupported assertions and wrangling over who's not discussing right, I can't see any advantage to promoting this thread.--Percy

"I sort of agree with Skepticalbip when he said, "Posting brain farts and demanding that others 'prove them wrong' is not science..."These kind of statements are unfair to me. Please show me where I had posted a fart and demanded that someone prove me wrong. Some people over react to ideas they don't agree with.

I had a look over at IIDB.I think it is enough to demonstrate that any attempt at discussion with you will be a waste of people's time. This topic will not be promoted.As I told you before, but it seems too politely: You have not a teensy clue about the topics you try to discuss. You combine that with a total inability to be cognizant of that which makes you impervious to learning. People much more knowledgeable and, I suspect, a large amount more intelligent than you have wasted enough time with you.

Anyone wanting to take part in this discussion go here:
"I had a look over at IIDB.""As I told you before, but it seems too politely: You have not a teensy clue about the topics you try to discuss. You combine that with a total inability to be cognizant of that which makes you impervious to learning. People much more knowledgeable and, I suspect, a large amount more intelligent than you have wasted enough time with you."You are starting to rant.

It is because this is where all discussion with you seems to quickly end up that this topic will not be promoted.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director