Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8942 total)
34 online now:
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,797 Year: 18,833/19,786 Month: 1,253/1,705 Week: 59/446 Day: 59/64 Hour: 11/13


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Challenge to Wordswordman
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3321 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 31 of 33 (20123)
10-17-2002 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Wordswordsman
10-17-2002 10:20 AM


have not the time nor have I actually done the homework but it seems academic to me that Mayr's revolution and any gentics one wants to find universal from his growth is critically dismantled by the 2-D physics of Wolfram's for it has been my position up to now, and now would be a good time to criticze me in it, that Mayr's founder, which Croizat seems to have writ off to a colony WHICH I may have misappropriated from an Illustration of Wright's as geographic distribution as was expressed in 1-d (i think 6 times by Wright) if used to the 2-D form of Wolfram's Naturalism avoids much of the excessive new words Mayr wanted biologists to grow used to. I have never had an excuse (Figenbaum only gave the infinte point not the deviation from a Kant systematic constitution) to recuse my self from the undoubtly great? ornithologist Mayr is and was (I have no way to judge this) but without the 1-d reasoning and being less than a 2.5 display no matter the fractal dimension I think that BSC and much else Mayr did goes to the title Mayr vs Croizat Croizat vs Mayr but to specify this interms of my own redition of c/e

ICR vs geology
Biology vs technology
Wolfram vs Intelligent Desgin

Would likely impy I desist from posting scatterd and devote a whole web site. FOr which I would rather try to program univerality search indicators instead for the creation side etc.

Reproduction COULD be subject to Maxwell internal FORM that became Internal Field ( in modern Physics) but no dismantling of the standard fare of c/e will approve of a move even an inch in my preferred direction unless it is shown as I think the days will bear that WOlfram is mistaken as to computational irreduciblity but my notion of haptic operation of objects is a bit broader still than needs the focus to be concentrated as reaquired for now.

I just collected a fungus that has different varigations depending on whether the dead matter is upside down or not and seems to possibly be modelable with celluar automata etc.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-17-2002 10:20 AM Wordswordsman has not yet responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3321 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 32 of 33 (20124)
10-17-2002 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Wordswordsman
10-17-2002 10:20 AM


Duplication of previous message, content deleted - Adminnemooseus

[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 10-18-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-17-2002 10:20 AM Wordswordsman has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by outblaze, posted 10-18-2002 11:16 PM Brad McFall has not yet responded

    
outblaze
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 33 (20217)
10-18-2002 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Brad McFall
10-17-2002 2:15 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Brad McFall:
Was unneeded quotation of entire previous message, deleted - Adminnemooseus

Brad,

I can never understand a word your saying. Can you possible put it in a more coherent layman form?

[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 10-18-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Brad McFall, posted 10-17-2002 2:15 PM Brad McFall has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019