Well such language needs to be afforded if for no other reason than Kant's"But now why is it that teleology usually forms no proper part of theoretical natural science, but is regarded as a propaeduetic or transition to theology?"Critique of Judgment(Analytic of Teleological Judgement)
and
Hull's(book on biophilosophy in a chapter"Teleology") "Teleological systems do arise, either directly or indirectly, through selection processes, but the importance of selection processes for our analysis is that the ultimate theories that determine the narrowest goal states are selection theories. In cases of nonteleolgocalsystems, no such hierarchy of laws exist."
and as Hull later quoted Nagel to an effect bearing on symmetry
"Ernst Nagel(in Mumson, 1971) has suggested that the difference between teleological and nontelelogical statements is "comparable to the difference between saying that Y is an effect of X and saying that X is a cause or condition of Y. In breif, the difference is one of selective attention." If we keep in mind the existence of multiple causes and multiple effects, there is some truth in what Nagel says. Teleological statements do not require any temporal inversion of causal sequences. The superficial appearence of temporal inversion stems from selective attention. In ordinary causal statements, we direct our attention to an earlier event that has caused the event in question, whereas in a teleological statement we direct our attention to a later event to see what the event in question causes."p117(I didnt write down the book title)
My use of "future" is in this concrete sense. With temporal and spatial cross hierarchies in macrothermodyamics IT IS NOT TRUE that temporal causal inversions can be summarily ignored however and it is questionable likewise if it is categorically true that nontelelogical systems have no hierarchy of laws. I would need to express more on Wimsatt's notion of historical teleolgical systems in terms of the DIFFERENCE of process and system. Only those that can be excluded a priori from affecting symmetry issues are available to this criticism of Hull's sensu stricto. Putting the wave-particle duality of quantum mechanics into the mix makes the discussion quite lengthy and complicated but there is no need to fear what Feynmann discussed in Chapter 6 on THE CHARACTER OF PHSYCIAL LAW.
I'll get into it later if people are really this interested. So far only you seem to be. You were correct there is no "winning". I was just uncertain about how Mick thought biologically but I have seen enough posts (by now) to have more proper sense of his/her understanding. I agree with Marjoree Grene ( I have spoken with her in person) when she said("Such naming, though perhaps comforting, seems to have no effect on the kind of causality entailed in the theory of natural selection") that Mayr's analysis was thus rather more conforting than representative of biological change. I disagree with her synthesis however(we are not dealing simply with "billard ball causality" but rather with such notions as if twistor diagram DO or DO NOT replace Feynman Diagrams in a newer theoretical style or not(integrals of biocollectivites are little discussed(see Gladyshev etc)(and if that sounds "futuristic" too bad). The EXPLANDUM of natural selection indeed leads to answering "what for" but it must be interms of the following issues on space of evolution and this is getting, how did we say yesterday, waffling???
Problems with the space of evolution.
quote:
Also, I'm not convinced of his brilliance. He's bright, no doubt, but brilliant? I'm not sure.
@
parasomnium responds to schrafinatorI am not sure how the future IN science will understand this unity of opposites
quote:
Infinity in Science and ReligionFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
... infinity has always been associated with experiencing religious awe, ... (i) Rational discernment of infinity Cantor created a new kind of numbers. ...
Page not found - Metanexus - Similar pages
I cant get this link to work anymore. The quote is from GOogle.
quote:
The principle of relativity of motion was thus invented by purely philosophical
considerations about infinity 800 years before it was formulated by Einstein as a principle
of physical sciences.
To sum up one can argue that Cusanus has overcome the intellectual dead end of
apophatic theology by trying to illustrate infinty by means of mathematical symbols and
by applying the new thought of coincidentia oppositorum to God’s infinity. However
this is only half of the truth. By applying this new concept of coincidenita oppositorum
also to scientific problems he paved the way to a kind of secularisation of infinity.
in any EVENT Dirac’s use of the secular perturbation in quantum mechanics
will apply it even if not explicitly in Cantor’s cited sense.
quote:
PP17: Cusanus’ accomplishments
(i)
infinity of space,
(ii)
the relativity of motion,
(iii)
the approximative processes in mathematics and in epistemology.
(iv)
The conceptual difficulties of dealing with infinity in terms of quantity
Thus he paved the way by thinking about infinty in many ways to modern sciences.
III.4: The mathematics of actual infinity: Georg Cantor
PP18: Georg Cantor
Cantor revived the tradition of Cusanus, to whom he even alluded in the endnotes of his
Grundlagen.
Steve Bayne dreamt up
http://www.hist-analytic.org/...l_and_broad_on_space_apa.htmthe distinction between aspects as they relate to places from and at which objects appear! Each aspect is uniquely associated with two places in perspective space. Take the case of one of two acute angles given to me when view a box top from my own perspective. It can be classified in either of two ways. Either angle can be classified as a member of the series of aspects that make up the object, and therefore as something located at the place of the object to which it belongs; or , it can be considered as an element among all the other aspects present in my perspective, and therefore as located at the place from which that aspect appears.(p3) Now evolutionary space as a similar dual issue. Take for instance Croizat’s summary from his method below
CroizatNow, the tracks can be viewed as a single object to the astronaut of long vacation in geosynchronous orbit or it can be but an aspect/property of the astronauts visual field which includes the moon, other planets, stars etc at a particular moment in time.
For the time being we place on hold the discussion of how the summary graph was constructed.
One of the the things learned from the bad old days of evolutionary theory is that it is not a good idea socially to try to write and think biological change soley from the perspective of the human lineage as this leads often to undesirable anthropomorphisms. Thus Broad’s perspective of the inherence of the position of percipient is better deprecated and the EVC dillitant is better not retaining Broad’s triadic philosophy, where besides the object and property a third term, the position of the percipient, was (now) introduced. We do however retain the contribution of primates to the track object. We do not therethrough loose the concept of the private world however. The whole disagreement about creatioin and evolution becomes one of if one can ascribe existence to unexperienced tracks. So the question remains, is this space something real or is it only added to experience during the use of the browser?
It matters somewhat if the tracks were methodically summarized as things or events but I have perspective from which the particular philosophical issue is reduced once again to the same problem of ‘from’ and ‘at’. Para wants to insist that IN ADDITION to this perspective there is privacy of space as a Cartesian mental act/sensation and if I DO NOT ADD this act to my own tracing Para is blind to any brilliance even if it is here. Para does not need to agree with Wittgenstein(on private languages) but this does not mean that I can help it. The public space that we do construct when turning the from into an at does depend on the tracks ‘ontology but the epistemology is not the public space based on our ability to communicate. Communicating in plain English is no guarenttee of mirroring to the communicant the functionality of the the track IN THE perspective (of any neiboorhood/dimension).
There is nonetheless something behind all this. From my perspective the view of Russel is perfectly consonant with it. Broad is correct to view the need of the material in here. Thus there comes about misunderstanding of evolution when there really is material behind here but spirit is assumed by the poster. This does not stop the poster from finding that other material might be in its place and this confuses evo posters to no end it appears then that space is not real when it was the place of the at not the froms of the author that were called into question. This is what Para called spaggetti. It is not. It is the general acceptance of real space beyond experience in the process of being inferred. We can however add this space as well. That requires a lot more thought and work and is rarely encountered on EVC. It is not distance that became talk about causal ancestry but strechs that ancestor the quality of functioning physical bodies as a better system of phsyucis and geometry is delimited (during communication). With an agreed on physics and geometry of EVC it becomes possible to find the causal ancestry outside my own particular perspective but then how much of it will not survie I doubt would not be much. So while this had implications for Russel on action at a distance it only has here at EVC on the relation of 1-D symmetry to the general moment when the distance applies and is not a dream.
Thus when Parasomnium can not tell the difference between being bright and the brilliance of brightness this amounted little more than to the belief in the possibility of public space is based on our ability to communicate. But as Wittgenstein is surely correct and our c/e discussion does depend not on any actual private worlds’ similarity but lineage similarity not subjectivised psychologically. The use of memes tends to obliterate this difference(memes need not be causally given to the senses) and leads unsuspecting creatures more to the creator of the private space than the deceptive practices of the creatures themselves. When I said future I did not mean that the communication was impossible because outside EVC there was no similar space I only meant that we are communicating this future, here and now!
The point is that a percipient is in some neighborhood of the object which causes those aspects to appear to occupy public space outside the brain. The space of objects and that of percepts are now entirely external to each other just as they had been for Broad of 1915. Thus contraAyer and thus Parasomnium the object DOES NOT OCCUPY perceptual space and neither is an aspect within a spatial neighborhood of a percipient in a private world. When we have problems communicating biological change it is because don’t add to our experience on EVC and confuse the dream with Descartes’ existence psychologically (like)
quote:
The cognitum: a perception-dependent concept needed in baraminology
Sanders, RW; Wise, KP. 2003.
ICC5 :445-455. CELD ID 17176
Abstract.
The taxonomic concept of cognitum (pl., cognita) is introduced to study design among baramins and to relieve other taxonomic concepts (e.g. holobaramin, baramin, basic type) concepts from considerations that may hinder their development. The cognitum is defined as a group of organisms recognized through the human cognitive senses as belonging together and sharing an underlying, unifying gestalt. This concept recognizes the importance of human neuro-cognitive processes in classification. It also implies that, at creation, organisms were endued with characteristics that elicit a unique, divinely-created psychological response in humans and that, after the Flood, the descendant species of the surviving representatives of the baramins retained these specially created characteristics. The cognitum affords research into the relative contribution by objective biosystematic techniques and neuro-cognitive phenomena to the study of biological design and classification. It also promises to clarify current problems in singly nested hierarchies, conflicting characters (homoplasy), fuzzy boundaries of groups, and unplaced taxa. Through its use in the study of biological phenomena, criteria that have been or might be proposed for baramins can be evaluated independently.
CELD
etc. You can force an object to so be communicated with technology but this is not what is going on when people are confused the issues of from and at during biological change. Just as it is not possible for a taxonomic specialist to communicate to nonspecialists as easily as within the ilk it is not easy for a person subject to flesh change notions to communicate the flesh to others who do not think the change occurs to them. So communicating c/e is more complicated than communicating secondary sex characters in hyraxes as it is not simply the acceptance that primary qualities are subjective but that mental additions to space might be as well. And all of this miscommunication came about because unlike in physics comparisions the difference of an event and a thing CANNOT be made short of total knowledge of what is being discussed(thus there would be no need to communicate if such exists/existed). This would be a bad and unsuccessful way to create memes if that was similarily insisted on.
Sir James Jeans said in "The New Background of Science"p99"Space begins to appear merely as a fiction created by our own minds, an illegitimate extension to nature of a subjective concept which helps us to understand and describe the arrangement of objects as seen by us, while time appears as a second fiction serving a similar purpose for the arrangement of events which happen to us. This is of course in striking contrast with the earlier views of Kant which had dominated metaphysics until the advent of the theory of relativity. These may be summarised as follows:
"(1) The notion of Space cannot be derived from external experience; because, in order that I may apprehend things as out of me and out of each other, I must have the notion of Space already in mind;
"(2) the notion of Space is a necessary, a priori one; for I cannot imagine Space annhilated, though I can very well think it emptied of objects".
In brief, for Kant as also for Descartes and Newton, objects cannot exist without space; for Einstein, space cannot exist without objects.
I think that is more a mess than what I wrote presently but I guess you would not so judge. I dont know.
If you wnat to discuss the symmetry of body fields(hierarchy of laws) in the Octopus rather than sexuality in plants I can oblige in this line.
Now here is a new discipline of Genetics that can reaveal these objectivities more properly and if existant in the future WOULD remand the issues of body symmetry genetically.
On a new experimental philosophy for genetics
Introduction
There has been much advertised excitement about the age of information and biology with JD Watson having said that if he had had Bill Gate’s bank account we would have most all diseases figured out in a couple of decades but reasoned caution (Lewotin, THE TRIPLE HELIX) remains as it comes to the use of information communications on the biological information of the DNA. Whole organism biologists were surprised before the rise of this industrial sector to realize that that had been thinking in terms of phenotypes and not genomes but even with that correction fairly well disseminated issues such as what is the gene? Can disease be called a phenomenon or not?? What is the environmental variance of any reductionist advance??? Still press and remain while population approaches have not advanced not because of issues of probability spaces in the sequence info but because the maths are feared more for what they have not accomplished than what they might force the rest of science to change towards as they work. So instead accelerated drug discovery is the approach of choice but even this approach will be too small once nanotechnologies are interactive with products as issues of nanoecology will dominate the concerns around the applications no matter what the financial return is for ignoring them.
Gould had left us with the conceptual history of hierarchicalization of this life but he had remained wedded to the formalist-functionalist division and deprecated the possibility of direct physical influence in morphospace. Is it not possible that Olby was correct and the Mendel has not been correctly applied to petering out effects across generations and that Gould’s remaining functionality better masks the developmental binomial in terms of Pascal’s use of mathematical induction subject to the second law of thermodyanmcis rather than simple adaptationist hardening and over zealous reductionist theorizing?? Is it possible that molecular biology was not at odds even with organismic biology but rather was indicative of a potential cross level effect still but part of the hierarchicalization sought?
Is not a new experimental philosophy for genetics arsising by the evo-devos but in a way that repudiates the old phenotype-genotype distinction for a formalist one that is also functional in the most nationalistic sense?? Is not hierarchical thermodynamics contributing to this direct influence of matter on morphospace not invariantly by constraint but instead binomially by symmetries of rotations? Can not D’Arcy Thompsonon’s surface idea be better assyed if the notion of phenotype were replaced by Russell propositional functions of strechs that are genetically grouped. Does not a new discipline of genetics exist in which longrange posterior Bayesian probabilities link base changes in separate chromosomes but are unified by Gladyshev’s law of monohierarchies of different life times? And are not genomes rather to be arranged informationally by the effects of substations on lipids as well as proteins and RNAs??
Ciliated Protozoans with a galvantropic response are well suited to carry out this new emerging evolutionary theory as not only can the new phase be integrated into old biometrics but the affects of quantum mechanics are ripe for the final calculations( ionic bonds are only bonds noticed to fit reproduction etc).
A new experimental discipline is described which applies group theory to Mendel’s statistical analysis of the forms across generations enabling the researcher to witness genetic changes that have not been hitherto possible with reciprocal crosses etc . It is possible that developmentally regulated chromosome fragmentation is responsible for any success this discipline might generatlize beyond the protozoans.
It is proposed to find out if telemeric repeat additions can not be directed/controlled/adapted by the equipment which alters the structure at panmixia showing that random mating is a false notion but instead is an entropic effect of large life time variance in the effective population. Fisher’s fundamental theorem is called into question if on result.
Can a proportionate cathodic signal spatially cause nonconstant epigenetic inheritance of macronuclei reorganizations not necessarily allelic. In otherwords, is not so-called non-mendelian inheritance of macronuclear mutations but actually MENDELIAN in the sense that the A-gene rescue is a result of Mendel’s dominant character having a double signification of both parental and hybrid character? Do not vacuoles regulate first and foreforemost nonGibbs minimized supramolecular effectors through the endoplasmic reticulum. Thus the hypotonic concentration inside a vacuole secondarily draws water from the isopotential cytoplasm but primarily is used to sequester like minimization products for further optimization/minimization than that in a prior replicative time. Thus the exiting of water through the vacuole is needed where the equilibration cannot occur naturally. Ie It can occur in salt water as the ions permit motions entailing minimizations but it cant occur in fresh water. Are not the crystals that form used to standardize what ionic relations are exited??
Formalisms
Catastrophe Theory as an affordance of classical Clausius macrothermodynamic entropy for (the place) of a microstate representation of different protozoans with variable life times (using Catastrophe theory to present a Gibbs ensemble).
We introduce as if in classical mechanics what was called a Gibbs ensemble (Dirac) for the (Sonneborn) limit on the number of divisions a particular protozoan can divide while still alive. This separation is essentially part of conjugation as well. Paracmecium divides 200? Others 400 others over 800? These qualitiative differences are indicative of different placements in the Gladyshev series. We consider all the dynamical coordinates and momenta as Cartesian coordinates in a c ertain space, the phase space, whose number of dimensions is twice the number of degrees of freedom of the system. Any particular limit number is thus representable by a pojnt in this space
This point moces according the the classical equations of motion and thus permits the monohierarchy of a grade to submit to the thermostat kinematics. But as the thermostat may be unknown suppose instead we don not know either the actual empirical Sonnborn limit but instead that the type is in a range of limit numbers (figured) in one or another possible state of the thermostat etc but according to a definite probabilistic law.
We now represent the limit figure (norm of rxn of division (lifetimes)) by a fluid in the phase space — the mass of the fluid being the totoal probability of the system being in any state whose representative point lies in the volume [ Cantor’s (heritable point sets are perfect but thermostat correlated ones need not be(they could be denumerable) are used to separate out those points correlated to thermostat chages vs say those of actual heritability possibly independent of the thermostat ]
THE DENSITY IS INTRODUCED(Dirac) and thus separates quantitiatvely those different division limits specifically.
??????
Ultimately, this representation is a result of different sets of microstates (dependent on the degree of equipollence of any needed continuous motion in discrete purely physical spaces)[The phase representation may have continua of higher cardinality than is needed to support the physics without the biology (Cantor’s atherial monod cardinality etc) but this is NOT supervienence nor emeregence but depends on the ordinal relations regardless of the cardinal abstraction] in the curious observation of Dirac on von Neumann.
???????
The actual transfinite descriptions of the set however equate the catastrophe set parameters chosen with with what thermodynamics (Catastrophe Book) in terms of quantum micro states
??????________--------------------------------------------------------------_________ __
(the difficulty in derivation ???? is preventing mutual disturbance or interaction between the limit figures and thermostat possible quantum states (thus the isolated (isolating from thermostat but not the dense in itself limit figure variances) point adherent sets are needed)) all that needs to be accounted for are torque possiblites from the adherent point sets such as to what ordertypes cardinalize the smaller or larger absolute reference frame. This does not affect the the thermostatics as the discrete space can be made as discrete as liked provided the continuous motion is described.
Thus it is expected that the choice of control vs state parameters and the gradient conditions will divide out inherences as Cantor suspected(Various subdivisions of Pr and Qr were also possible, and Cnator suggested that with the inherences Pi1,Qi1,Qi2, these might suffice to explain either separately or in various combinations distinct properties of matter, including differences in composition, chemical properties, and such phenomena as light, heat, electricity and magnetism.(Duaben p292-3) might apply properties to matter. This does not affect thermostatics as there is any discrete space the kinetic theory of gases or other physics might propose provided the continuous motion be described.
Thus if the rotations do not sign any other than the classical density quantum mechanically the algebra of Mendel’s double parent/hybrid attains denotation in Cantor’s maths for doing for organic science what mechanics already did for physical science. Dauben was incorrect to state that Cantor was not satified with a purely mechanical physics but rather he was not satisfied without a fundamental series on the relation of symmetry in such a physics. Thus the group theory of the ordertypes in a given associativities of fudanmental series per bioreproduction we have indeed finally reached Cantor’s application
For in addition to or in place of the mechanical explanation of nature, (which has all of the aids and advantages of mathematical analysis at its disposal, and yet the one-sidedness and inadequacy of which has been exposed so well by Kant), previously there has not been even one attempt to pursue this beginning [ie Kant’s] armed with the same mathematical rigor for the purpose of reaching beyond that far-reaching organic explanation of nature.
This had not occurred in science before because in an attempt to keep it self pure from the unconditioned creation science science could not synthesize topology and ordertypes in population genetic terms. Instead the simple prejudice of Dauben’s view represented where not even intelligent design need exist. Biology needs this addition but it did not get it because Mayr misrelated teleomatics and teleonomics. There is direct imposition via the 2nd law but it is not a program rather the regular relations of fundamental series subject to group rotations framed to a reproductive algebra of Mendel developmental binomial. This is catastrophically qualified in terms of the microstate quantifications and can be associated with Winfree cycles within a genome. Thus Cantor’s ambiguity of inaddition to or in place of is removed by this contribution of a new experimental philosophy for genetics. Dauben was mistaken to interpret that beyond organic was non mechanical physics. It is Biblical creationism but up to the organic explanation IS this new functionality afforded to theoretical biology by perfect, dense in itself and inherent sets composing different discrete Gibbs ensembles but with only a single continuum(for the present we use the first world hypothesis of Cantor that divides from cardinality N1 not N0 only) throughout nature even though there may be more beyond (absolute vs actual infinity).. It remains to work it (the logic) into WOoder’s functors and Russel’s prop functions. On this will depend if the first world hypothesis continues to hold up against any biophilosophy of Mayr teleonomic filiation.
Experimental Deisgn-group theory
8 electrode vs 4 electrodes and inbreeding subtractions under classical density, issue of highes temps —ordertypes organization of relations to absolute handedness(ordertype subscription of kind of rotation) different designs give different ket/bra vector combos. Torque is relative to this scalar distribution.
Examplars-algebra
Big and small
Pcadautm- internal rotation
Paurelia- no rotation(symmetric)
Pmultimicronucleatum-external rotation
Can biology improve the complementarity of physics?
Can diploid population genetics adapt large structures to small microstates via genetic interference of Gladyshev and reverse info flow?? Is there a new physics available with e-numbers of alleomorphs via converting catastrophe control parameters into state space variables by deteriming temporal and spatial inhomogenities???
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-04-2005 02:13 PM
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-04-2005 02:26 PM
):
™ Version 4.2