Evolution or Devolution?

http://EvC Forum: Abiogenisis by the Numbers -->EvC Forum: Abiogenisis by the Numbers

quote:

---

as to the VIRTUAL GIBBS ASSEMBLY under any thermal physics exploration and comes to a crucial cognition that Gibbs, so he thought, was correct to diss duplications in gas sums of a certain entropy INCREASE as being of NO REAL EVENT. If the reason that Fisher/Wright TENSION has not materialized into newer evolutionary theory theoretically (respite Gould's conceputual stepping)is that any math analytics of Fisher is COMPREHENDED QUANTUM MECHANICALLY in Schrodingers bifurcated grammetology then it seemed to me the equivalent theory biologically (with or without attitudes as to the INNERSIGHT(GERMAN WORD) of no-such-event are cellular physiologies (no matter the origin) with the same CODES (and small statistical variations mutationally possible). Thus variation in the criteria to generate these codes IS experimentally into entropy defs but Schrodinger dissing classical thinking worked on the propositional function vs object without the necessity of experimental philosophy of ACUTAL EXPERIMENTALLY DETERMINED EQUILIBRIA.

---

Any such case where

quote:

---

NINETEENTH-CENTURY POPULARIZATIONS OF THERMODYNAMICS AND THE RHETORIC OF SOCIAL PROPHECY

​

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THERMODYANMICS IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY, introducing the concepts of energy and entropy, was part of a revolution in nineteenth-century physics contemporary with the revolution brought about in biology by the concept of evolution by natural selection^1. Like Darwinism, thermodyanmics has been intertwined with social thought, influenced by it and influencing it sicne the earliest formulations."

---

(in Energy & Entropy edited by Brantlinger p307 by Greg Myers) applies would seem to need some actual experimentally determined equilibira in order to discusss the context as well as the content and molecular information seems to prima facie NECESSARILY contain this lest it is just ontological confidence.See evcwise etc
EvC Forum: understanding entropy
http://EvC Forum: Negentropy????? -->EvC Forum: Negentropy?????
etcThus it seems to me Silverman’s { in entropy. However} might have already been addressed. I at least had suggested that a coding of biological information is in no necessary tension with reversible molecular motions. That does not say a lot unless the full quantum implications were drawn out but I don’t have that expertise to compare the maths of physics and biology as of yet, yet if one took Bondi’s universe to be that wherein organisms grow and possibly change the rates of development I cant see any difficulty with the *thought* that the expansion in life is equal to whatever the mathematical relation is but I am still at a loss how this is to be expressed in terms of everyday physics if it is through the biology of such that we first understood this and not by any alien information etc. It may be due to biological informations that have no equivalent in physics and exist DUE to the reversibilities and the event existing where Shrodinger could then be said to have wrongly physicalized it.It is a nice change to get to use the phrase thermal contact again. Thanks. Exactly what is being SEEN from the molecular to the organismal is suspicious to say the least. On my own I have visualized a possible nexus of contact no matter how not biologized asbut as to this being more than "like Darwinism" I can not say but by ex cathedral exclaimations about what I dont know in physics and that would not be fair to the physicists. So how one is supposed to interpret the lack of a differential in a spatial sense when it seems to have been the temporal biological sense seems to remain as much a mystery as Einstein's entire project to "unify" the forces. I can give an opinion but it is just that. The polity must decide. I repudiate claims about these martians until I see that the problem is simply not the academic one I encountered on attempting to discuss snakes and frogs at Cornell rather than birds and elephants.I would have found thermal contact to be between the two DIFFERENT interpenetrating ellipses on my diagram but the distance between them might be taxa specific. Generally I have considered the macro level to possible study this
but that is more than speculation and I would have not posted it but since you asked how could the macro and micro be related. TTTTTTTTThat's how I think it. I can't see how any philosophy of little/green/men or even the more realistic "brain\in\a\vat" applies. That seems to be a choice just like a religous one can be submitted to weekly.

I think Silverman might have mistaken the origin of creature advances in deceptive evolution with one's intution about creatures other than man but his comments on JMSmith seem consisent with my understanding of the man and belies indeed howcome I have such a hard time lifting the cold bloods past the dinosaur popularity in general and in particular a "lower" form can have a superiority, it seems to me, (given a good reading of Provine's book Sewall Wright and Evolutionary Biology) if IN FISHER'S words the lower forms, you name them, I just wont call them "greys", have a better equilibrium of the "constitutional disadvantage of the homozygous dominant."I am struggling to make this context independent and I know I have failed that but as soon as I saw that fireflies can flash in amazingly diverse patterns I realized that creatures could use "deceptive man-understood TOE" to outevolve any primate just as GOD could always change the laws of physics if physcists tried to alter them beyond GODS willingness (sic!). Obviously the last is absurd and rather speaks into where people assert PROOVE of GOD. But without god the query on deceptive evolution remains. Howfar this is related to 2LOT, I dont know.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-26-2005 18:36 AM

Biggerstaff thinks that there is an orderable nexus between universal entropy and biological order or at least supports Kerner as to c/e but I dont think this synthesizes the hierarchy properly.The kind of order that results from that view is more like what a JAVA programmer experiences than what I think the science remands. Namely that there is restrictive access across levels of organization much like if not ideally in the case where one can have a class be subclass of another OR is a has a relationship. I dont think that that is what the relation of entropy devolves to however even though this is not incompatible with an understanding based on PARTICULATION reasoned from quantum states rather than a diffennt assignment of weightable values. It is just that physicists not aliens have reasoned thoughts in their human possession without attempting to incorporate genetical continutity. Delbruk , Elssaser, Crick among the notables did not exist when transformational grammars might be applied to their own data sets.The current field of biological sequence analysis is set up to use stochastic regular grammars to sort differences of paralogous and orthologous sequence duplications. The divergence thus found by any grey might be associated physically by the existence of a transformational grammer TO whatever the non-biological equivlanet of the homology bound by evolutionary theory here on earth but this would have to be subject to arguments about Gibbs paradox which seem to resolve otherwise when it comes to the non off by a factor equality of the SYMMETRIC relation in the hierarchy, some such wich would be necessary if our brains were to have had this knowledge not of us.The problem arose for physicists who thought they too much about the classical conditions and thus in the case that the paralogous and othrologous sequence comparative programs did have the same asymptotic density it was inconsequential that a partition existed no matter what the relation of the biochemistry IS to the origin of genetic information. Specifically there was no weight to the physicists argument that S= S +S in this case where a homologous Gibbs compatible lawabiding reality bound the separation between the hierarchy. It was not that quantum mechanics permitted one to understand how S infinty as T 0 where all the 1st law thermo remained valid but that the living thermostat was not dependent on a solution that divided by N!. All this stuff about aliens confused here the relation of >> and ++ 1-D symmetries IN VIEW OF JAVA TYPE understanding.The expression for S(nklnV+2/3lnT+ 3/2ln(2piemk/ho^2) +3/2) DID NOT yield simple additivity because it constructs the homologous sequence under Georgi Gladyshevs law thus no matter what the Grey is made of , whatever its genetic equivalent is the interchange of molecular position does matter unlike in physics such that a separate creation occurs when speciation happens without any change in the thermostat. Humans today think a transformational grammer is sufficient to decode this relationship but it isonly that entropy is not properly reasoned where these grammars dont work as drift as understood in this context of a stochastic grammer DOES depend differently for each locomotion PER migratons which did not exist for Fishers environment that saw fitness like entropy increase but entropy does not either stochastically affect it for it is the thermostat capacity dependent on >> where ++ symmetry matters relative to the biochem no matter the biophysics of Sexpressed above but specifically NOT by the current use of N! subtractions.Adsorbabilty and chromatography are twodiffernt things. Gladyshevs law addresses when the the molecules per life are COMPLETELY INDISINGUISHABLE.Quotes
Kestin, Joseph, 1966. A COURSE IN THERMODYNAMICS Blaisdell Publishing Company:Waltham Massachusetts page 578

quote:

---

The mixing terms (13.28) obviously do not exist if the components are identical, for then no diffusive process sets in when the partition is removed. On the other hand, the full amount of entropy is produced even if the gases are made to approach each other continuously, the same amount of entropy is produced at each stage, provided the composition is the same, except in the limit, when it suddenly vanishes. This conclusion is certainly unexpected. It is known under the name of {Gibbs paradox after J.W. Gibbs who was the first to notice it. As pointed out by A. SommerfledThermodyanmics and Stastistical Mechanics, translated by J Kestin(Academic, 1956), p.80), in view of the atomistic nature of substances, including gases, the difference between their properties can never be made vanishingly small, and the mental process of continuously changing their properties to a common limit has no counterpart in nature. As long as the gases are..completely indistinguishable.

---

Jammer, Max, 1966The CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT of QUANTUM MECHANICS McGraw-Hill Book Company:New York

quote:

---

This raises the question: Was it possible that other problems at issue at the time, if worked out consistently , could have brought about the same conceptual reorientations as did the problem of black-body radiation? And perhaps in a logically less complicated way? Consider, for example, the well known irreconcilability with classical physics of the specific heat of solids at low temperatures, a problem whose solution was obtained de facto in terms of concepts formed in solving the black-body problem. One may conjecture how an independent and consistent solution of this problem on specific heat would have influenced the progress of theoretical physics. It seems highly probable that in this hypothetical case energy quantization of material systems(atoms or molecules) would have preceded that of waves and the approach to quantum theory would have been conceptually less difficult.
It may even be argued that the energy quantization of atoms, at least so far as their ground state is concerned, could have been inferred without great difficulties from the empirical foundations of the classical kinetic theory . Did not the fundamental observation that the specific heat per mole of monatomic gas at constant temperature 3/2R clearly indicate, if explained as it was in terms of average kinetic energy 3/2kT, that any energy supplied to the gas can increase only the kinetic energy of the atoms and not the energy of the internal motions of their constituent parts, whatever they were thought to be? Was it not common knowledge that in the process of atomic or molecular collisions the kinetic energy of particles, (Today this fact is explained by saying that the kinetic energy of particles, which at room temperatures of the order o 1/40eV, is much too small to excite the atom, its excitation energy being of the order of a few electron volts.) In retrospect it seems quite possible that a profound critical study of these and similar facts could have led to anticipating the idea of energy quantizations of atoms many decades before Bohr and thus to a more convient approach to quantum-theoretic conceptions. For, as it has once been said, research is to see what everybody has seen and to think what nobody has thought. But post iacturam quis non sapit?.

---

The mental process of continually changing properties to a (common limit) does exist in the subjectivity of the baraminologist when not the systematic taxonomist ..when it vanishes(Kestin) this is either the result of gene duplication or species duplication in the baramin and is only unexpected if one insists on genic selection is or only a higher level selectionism mutally exclusively .But it is obvisouly not only entropy that reordered the Question Jamer rasises with the answer to post iacturam quis non sapit non?This IS a commoner knowledge that mutations might add a process of atomic and molecular collisions where at internal motions in the thought of a monotamoic specific heat 3/2R are possibly increased either in kinetic energy itself of internally bound energy.You can search the web and find what everybody thought that nobody researches. This the defacto state of physics does not need to prehistoricize Bohr it bears only on the labyrinth of nongrounded state atomic data fields kept separate by baraminologists but allowed to fuse by evolutionist. You cannot pas the buck to biology as Dennet said of Chomskisms in Darwins Dangerous Idea but biochemistry is a long way from language about origin of genetic information and entropy while workable biologically need not be the future of the psychology involved.Thus while Sommerfeld reasoned in view of this atomistic nature o substances that the property differences can never be vanishingly small the evolutionary adaptibilty of fitness dependent on every such vanishing differences can produce molecular biologies where the convergence exceeds teat created from nonevolving processed systems.Thus while it is strictly true that the mental pictureKThe higher level processes in evolutionary biology (under current investigations)do enable this mental thought process to be modified by biochemical reality even while say mass is not infinitesimally divisible within the nucleus.This is why it is that a homologic ensemble that links statistical relations of speciated duplication lexos and gene duplication lexos and why Goulds pronouncements on genic selectionisms (as mere accounting) are true. So while we have somewhat the ability to address the lower bound at this time the upper is in some dispute until a deductive biogeography can be constructed. This however can never change the account in the genic selectionst favor. It can only show the biological SUBTRACTION more closely resembles the quantum mechanical solution@(N!).Rather than applying quantum mechanics and dividing out N! form results pertaining to Gibbs paradox we find evolutionarily that in any statistical mechanics used to bind othrologic and paralogic bifurcation and contemplated by wolfram and transform grammarians we had a homologic ensemble instead which is adapted thus (such that) no prior programming can determine what the course as in nature.Instead gladyshevslaw gives the biological correction. This is also lakes predictive consequences for attempts to abiotically fashion life if more than one ensemble exists as occurs every time man attempts to make this life.Thus while a given lineage has its oen monphyletic division less than N! The reduction to N! at the origin of life is not commutative even in the ideality that is not. This requires actual of use the classical partition function to relate order and complexity and entropy. I have not done it but I WOULD use this particular integration if I could. No alien can take that away from a human.If you think the post is premature and too messy, just ignore it I as going to work on my math first but if it helps in anyway then it might have served for being timely as well. For the rewrite will involve the use of an alternative to QM in DIVIDING what was classically a problem with flame spectra data rather than any idea of nonearthlife statistics in the same circuit of interactive electrons (electron orbit shape vs noncurrentatomelectron orbits). If you are more concerned with the genetical implications I am drawing you can take them up elsewhere but the physics I am just starting to figure out.

This is the "blueprint" behind all my overzealous words. Figuring out the physical implications is not easy. As that happens I deflate any Dawkins' pheneocopy (first seen in flies I think) that a meme might have wrongly coopted at the point of arguments about the large numbers to abiogenesis generally. Interestingly as I started to comprehend the physics it turns out the biology DECREASES the number of permutations in calculation. I still cant do the integration so the blueprint is "off color" as long as that doesnt occurr but there is no reason to agree with extrasolarsystem life in my sense so far.The qualification in the diagram I entered after situating the difference of two physical quantifications was,"This is a(this letter was not included by me wrongly-ed. note) potential relation between levels and precludes genic selectionism for an aposteriori population strucuture constructed from molecular proportions."I found it quite interesting to notice how Jammer describes some thought of Bohr after I constructed this diagram after reading biggerstaff's post.
Max Jammer "the conceptual development of quantum mechanics" page116-7

quote:

---

"The earliest allusion to such a conception may perhaps be found as early as 1921 in a paper119 in which Bohr breifly discussed the function of teh principle. In his statement that the principle originated "in an effort to attain a simple asymptotic agreement between the spectrum and the notion of an atomic system in the limiting region where the stationary states differ relatively only a little from each other,"¹²⁰ he apparently tried to describe the principle without reference to conceptions extraneous to quantum theory. In accordance with his insistance on the irreconcilability of quantum theory with classical mechanics and electrodynamics, he regarded the correspondence principle as merely affirming a formal analogy of heuristic value. Although his numerous and often somewhat conflicting statments, made from 1920 to 1961, on the essence of the correspondence principle¹²¹ it seems that at the time under discussion, that is, in the early twenties, he did not view the principle as implying the inclusion of classical physics within quantum theory. Not only would such a conception have contradicted, of course, his fundamental dialectics of the irreconcilability just mentioned, but it would also have implied that a quantum-theoretic theorem makes an assertion on classical physics. Bohr's attitude, at least at that time, was well described by Kramers¹²³ when he wrote in 1923: "Bohr expressed himself in his talks somewhat as follows: classical as well as quantum theory are each as a description of nature merely a caricature; it allows, so to speak, in two extreme regions of phenomena an asymptotic presentation of physical reality."¹²⁴

---

I have attempted not only to describe an effort to attain asymptotic agreement (not in terms of light but interms of comptuer logical locations of sequence data) but I related *that* thought which contained TWO DIFFERENTLY APPROACHABLE quantizations(quantity meausres of data) (two regions if you will (gene,species)) but found where the experimental philosophy DIFFERS from a purely quantum mechanical perspective if that perspective rejected (as say per Jammer on Bohr) classical physics (as if contradictory in principle). My own failure to complete the integration may be no fault of my own but instead a reflection of already exising culutrally retained physical reality I am just uneducated on. I dont know. There is no contradiction in the biological data if all this works and if this is indeed the univocal same as Gladyshev's assertion of "no contra" that berberry noticed then there is some significant progress being made c/e wise.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 03-01-2005 16:29 AM