|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is ID scientific ? Yet another approach to the question. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5063 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
quote:p118 Mayr seems to have responded that these streaks if interpreted as Bohrian complemetarity as Weyl did, did not find any water in biology. I think the biological response is supposed to be to Bohr’s earlier thought about his uncle’s physiology rather than later philosophy from Matrix applications. There is no difficulty in reading this following of Weyl as a Russelian thought on Wittgenstein.
quote:p284 So now is Weyl correct? Can I not show the “hollow” symbol not only IS WITHIN but that it not hollow at all as Wely said. It is not water either only as Mayr seems to have approximately adjuded in what biology is. There are never ending ways to subtract a number from n! permutations provided the n! represent all future evolution of life as well as it’s death as suggested by viruses’ numbers . I am not even saying how ID, physical teleology and constructive biology are perverted. They are!! (now I use the word non-scientifically). Weyl asserts that “mutation adds a non-causality”. Does it?
quote:Either we are changing through the symbol what we say when we mean “mutation” or else there is causality. I represent through cause and correlation by two sources (biological and physical) see picture below. Weyl would say I just merely missed the latents by a division that would remain “hollow” in that diagram sorted by cyclic and acyclic representations. I say he miss used the differences in his own presentation of “bifurcation”.quote:p281 Theus was correct to question my citation of Weyls use of Delbrucks modelEvC Forum: When micro = macro ... , but it was Weyl’s intention to say the governance is by quote:p 279 but he accomplishes this by a thought that Gladsyehv has challenged Academy of Creative Endeavors where lay indeed a sense nonetheless of said “bifurcation.” Mayr seems instead to repudiate the thought altogther rather than ask if Bohr was not more correct in the difference of a perturbation physics vs orbit analogy. So removing Mayr and any other changes to lingos of “mutations” sensu stricto (I am one person , not a consensus body of science) from the static, I press on to say, that macrothermodynamcis might be able afford calculations on subtractions from n! permutations of whatever is between a gene and valence diagram recursively WITHIN biological tissue, that nonetheless obey Weyl’s interest in locating the 1.5 value of U for mutations quantum mechanically but nonetheless IS CAUSAL FROM BIOLOGICALLY HIGHER LEVELS (downward causation) allowing less actual activation energy BY CODED HERITABILITY of thermostatics (thermostat parameters associated with particular monophlys etc, clade differences) but is currently “embedded” in data on thermic variability of mutations, the sociality of biotechnology, and lack of training of biologists in quantum physics. (Roland Hoffman refused to talk with me until I had learned quantum, but that is an extreme case). It is clear that biotechnology took a different course
quote:following out the chain of rxns, but if thermostat parameters are hidden in Weyls use of Delbruck’s model then solving disease by simple valance diagrams without recursion to genes and demic variation of genomes themselves (as Watson proposed to use Gates’ $ if he had them) will fail more miserably than botched relief money to New Orelans’ victums. Any student of chemistry knows electron oribitals shape differences with respect to differences in energy levels. We need to read that backwards. Even this chain of biochemical events vs causality not correlated might be remedied if fractal mappings of different sets of correlations take the 1-D force fields into the inertial volume. This shortcut might only make sense to me just now, however. The relevant symbolic formations in macrothermodyanmics that show that no matter how hollow it sounds coming from me there is resonant timbre no matter the language expressed in areEvC Forum: Does Evolution have a point? Cited by me on EVC previously. There is a more objective solution than Weyl’s disparagement of Kant for an observation on cows (by Albert Schweitzer)and this came in part unrecognized generally from Moscow. It is as clear as day on the internet however dark,”what is darkest for theory, man, is the most luminous for the understanding from within; and to the elementary inorganic processes, that are most easily approachable by theory, interpretation finds no access whatsoever.”page 284. The next post will show how( I have other things to do in this life however), if one is confused, that recursion and self-duplication MIGHT be the same univocality. (at least that is what Weyl’s text seems to indicate. I have to think it through first. What it involves is substituting clade structure for Cartesianism. That is never an obvious thought, prima facie. It is obvious that it can be applied where Weyl quotes Dreisch on entelechy but that is not the whole ball of wax unless one was wedded to Mayr’s “one long argument”. I am not. I am also not interested in discussing simplistic versions of creationism. Quotes from Wey’s “Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science”Figure from Shipley’s “Cause and Corrlelation in Biology” This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-11-2005 12:31 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1535 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Of course Leibniz assumes the reality of matter manifested (IS) resultant upon THINGS. Does the tree make a sound Brad? Do shadows suggest to more, or (TWO)more; than what is actualized? Biology is a word and the mathmatics merely a language.
"Because the sky is blue....Ahhhhhhh-ahh. Love is old love is new. Love is all love is you." The Beatles "One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5063 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Well yes,
"shadow" was the word. Shipley discusses the method of contructing the directed graphs in terms of the "correlational shadows". Sure the digram would DIVIDE. That is why it is so interesting. But what it doesnt do is give a spherically symmetric total solution. It attempts to find the particularity that macrothremodynamics demands. As long as people still attempt to find "language" relations in "biological code" it will be necessary. If we find a new lingo mathematically in the practice of sorting back to causes, physics'lly, we might do away with the graph and simply speak its truth but for now only the "song" of silence remains. I was very lucky that you responded when you did. It made the transition much more pleasurable than otherwise. Actual infinity- let me not get anywhere near there just yet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annafan Member (Idle past 4610 days) Posts: 418 From: Belgium Joined: |
Sorry that I'm a bit late with this one...
Annafan, this is actually a reply to post 35 in "ID taken to the end". I understood your questions / points about this thread there better than here, so I'm responding to that post but pulling the discussion back over here.
I still fail to see where the ID hypothesis leads to. Really, I guess I just don't understand how proposing an "intelligent designer" can be considered a satisfying answer. I look at it this way. IF we accept that evolution could not have produce, or simply did not produce, a structure that we observe (and I KNOW this is a huge IF, but let's see where it leads to), THEN we have to change the way we think about the origins of what we see today. ID is one way to do that. It allows for structures that are "designed." As I showed previously in the other thread, it also can allow for mutation, for natural selection, and evolution.
It's the type of answer that fits everything. ONLY if you make your designer some kind of God. As we've seen over and over, "God" cannot be scientific; "God" can do anything, anytime, any way. So, assume a non-God designer. IF we accept that some structures are not explained by evolution, can we determine if they are designed and, if so, can we determine anything about the designer?
Well, I can't but agree of course. But it remains difficult to imagine a legitimate reason to suspect that a structure could indeed not have been caused by evolution. That is, a reason other than belief in a supernatural being, which was the requirement. The point is that, if we hold on to that requirement, we still at all times hold up that the final origin does not lie in an intelligent designer, but is supposed to be naturalistic. And this principle in itself always automatically leads to the conclusion that "intermediate" designers just unnecessarilly complicate matters. Let's go back to the supposed extraterrestrials who could have designed us. Let's say we are in a situation that a) despite a lot of study, we have still not been able to show how evolution produced certain structures in life on earth; to such point that it almost looks like evolution COULDN'T have done (of course, there will never be a way to be 100% sure; what makes things so hard is that evolution has a strong historical component, that pretty random and almost impossible to reconstruct circumstances often determined the specific directions it took) b) we have undisputable evidence of the existence (present or in the past) of very advanced extraterrestrial or even prior terrestrial intelligent beingsc) we can at this point not exclude that they engineered us, or the lifeforms we descend from, but we also can't prove this beyond reasonable doubt (like, there is no unambiguous 'designer signature' available; the possibility of being engineered is left open exclusively by our own inability to reconstruct through pure evolutionary ways) This situation looks like one you would accept as a reason to seriously consider, let's even say "give precedence", to an ID theory approach instead of a continued evolutionary approach (no matter how difficult). So you say "ok, we give up trying to explain life on earth all on its own, and instead concentrate on the extraterrestrials because that seems a better bet". The result is that you've merely made the task... HARDER in the end. At first the theory gives an advantage because it helps you overcome explaining the features that hadn't been explained yet. But after that, you will have to look for a naturalistic origin of a species that ITSELF was advanced enough to engineer the FIRST species for which you had to find naturalistic origins! You're even further from home. That's why I said: unless you have extremely strong indications of ID at our origins, AND very convincing candidates available for the designer, it makes absolutely no sense. [.....] It would absolutely make no sense to try to figure out the contents of the other box on its own, because it is tied to the "intelligence" black box. A seperate interpretation of the other black box would always be distorted or disjointed. Maybe it's even impossible to just peek inside, if you haven't first figured out the "intelligence" box. You've basically just described how we study cognition. We're constantly having this problem. We have one big black box (the human mind). We propose some smaller black boxes to fill the big black box. We try to make them consistent with each other. Then, we tackle the smaller black boxes. If we discover we thought about one of the black boxes incorrectly, since all the boxes are dependent on each other, we often have to start from scratch. This is a bit of a simplification, but the basic point remains: in this point, I don't see that ID is any worse off or invalid than other approaches we accept. I still argue it IS worse off, because in studies into cognition, you probably simply have no alternative approach available. You're forced into that kind of approach. This is not the case for the investigation into the origin of biological structures: there we have the approach of random mutation and natural selection.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Truth Inactive Member |
Totally Off Topic. Do not respond to this post.
|
This message is a reply to: | |||
Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 09-08-2005 12:40 AM | crashfrog has not replied |
Replies to this message: | |||
Message 36 by CK, posted 09-17-2005 8:07 PM | Truth has replied |
Message 36 of 47 (244471)
09-17-2005 8:07 PM |
Reply to: Message 35 by Truth 09-17-2005 8:02 PM |
|
This message is a reply to: | |||
Message 35 by Truth, posted 09-17-2005 8:02 PM | Truth has replied |
Replies to this message: | |||
Message 37 by Truth, posted 09-17-2005 9:52 PM | CK has not replied |
Message 37 of 47 (244487)
09-17-2005 9:52 PM |
Reply to: Message 36 by CK 09-17-2005 8:07 PM |
|
This message is a reply to: | |||
Message 36 by CK, posted 09-17-2005 8:07 PM | CK has not replied |
Replies to this message: | |||
Message 38 by crashfrog, posted 09-18-2005 12:21 AM | Truth has not replied |
Message 38 of 47 (244515)
09-18-2005 12:21 AM |
Reply to: Message 37 by Truth 09-17-2005 9:52 PM |
|
This message is a reply to: | |||
Message 37 by Truth, posted 09-17-2005 9:52 PM | Truth has not replied |
Message 39 of 47 (244592)
09-18-2005 11:03 AM |
Reply to: Message 15 by John Ponce 09-07-2005 10:42 PM |
|
quote:
In my experience, people of many disciplines, and especially engineers, are advocates of some form of ID - perhaps because they understand by experience how difficult a process it is to design reliable functionality (even with tons of education and intelligence).
This message is a reply to: | |||
Message 15 by John Ponce, posted 09-07-2005 10:42 PM | John Ponce has not replied |
Replies to this message: | |||
Message 40 by RAZD, posted 09-18-2005 12:20 PM | nator has replied |
Message 40 of 47 (244619)
09-18-2005 12:20 PM |
Reply to: Message 39 by nator 09-18-2005 11:03 AM |
|
This message is a reply to: | |||
Message 39 by nator, posted 09-18-2005 11:03 AM | nator has replied |
Replies to this message: | |||
Message 42 by nator, posted 09-18-2005 1:41 PM | RAZD has not replied |
Message 41 of 47 (244633)
09-18-2005 1:04 PM |
Reply to: Message 15 by John Ponce 09-07-2005 10:42 PM |
|
This message is a reply to: | |||
Message 15 by John Ponce, posted 09-07-2005 10:42 PM | John Ponce has not replied |
Message 42 of 47 (244637)
09-18-2005 1:41 PM |
Reply to: Message 40 by RAZD 09-18-2005 12:20 PM |
|
quote:
I would say that science is the art of understanding the universe and engineering is the art of understanding and using science.
quote:
Engineers may appear to be more drawn to ID than people in other fields, perhaps, because they are less likely to be fundamentalist christians. Same thinking\logic, less unexplainable myth.
This message is a reply to: | |||
Message 40 by RAZD, posted 09-18-2005 12:20 PM | RAZD has not replied |
Message 43 of 47 (596412)
12-14-2010 6:32 PM |
Reply to: Message 1 by Annafan 09-05-2005 12:36 PM |
|
This message is a reply to: | |||
Message 1 by Annafan, posted 09-05-2005 12:36 PM | Annafan has not replied |
Replies to this message: | |||
Message 44 by arachnophilia, posted 12-14-2010 6:36 PM | Livingstone Morford has replied | ||
Message 46 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-14-2010 11:00 PM | Livingstone Morford has not replied | ||
Message 47 by PaulK, posted 12-15-2010 2:16 AM | Livingstone Morford has not replied |
Message 44 of 47 (596414)
12-14-2010 6:36 PM |
Reply to: Message 43 by Livingstone Morford 12-14-2010 6:32 PM |
|
This message is a reply to: | |||
Message 43 by Livingstone Morford, posted 12-14-2010 6:32 PM | Livingstone Morford has replied |
Replies to this message: | |||
Message 45 by Livingstone Morford, posted 12-14-2010 6:44 PM | arachnophilia has not replied |
Message 45 of 47 (596416)
12-14-2010 6:44 PM |
Reply to: Message 44 by arachnophilia 12-14-2010 6:36 PM |
|
This message is a reply to: | |||
Message 44 by arachnophilia, posted 12-14-2010 6:36 PM | arachnophilia has not replied |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024