quote:

---

On the other hand science concedes to idealism that its objective reality is not given but to be constructed (nicht gegeben, sondern aufgegeben), and that it cannot be constructed absolutely but only in relation to an arbitrarily assumed coordinate system and in mere symbols. Above all the central thought of idealism comes into its own in the converse of the above fundamental principle:objective image of the world may not admit of any diversities which cannot manifest themselves in some diversity of perceptions; an existence which as a matter of principle is entirely inaccessible to perception is not admitted. Leibniz says concerning the fiction of absolute motion ( Leibniz’s fifth letter to Clark) “I reply that motion is indeed independent of actual observation, but not of the possibility of observation altogether. Motion exists only where a change accessible to observation takes place. If this change is not ascertainableby any observation then it does not exist.” To be sure, many physically different colors will produce the same sensation as red; but if one sends all these various reds through a prism, then the physical differences will manifest themselves in perceptible differences between the streaks of colored light emerging from the prisim

---

p118Mayr 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:

---

It is tempting to strech Bohr’s idea of complentarity far enough to cover the relation of the two opposite modes of approach we are discussing here. But however one may weigh them against each other, one can not get around the following significant and undeniable fact: the way of constructive theory, during the last three centuries, has proved to be a method that is capable of progressive development of seemingly unlimited width and depth; here each problem solved poses new ones for which the coordinated effort of thought and experiment can find precise and universally convincing solutions. In contrast the scope of the understanding from within appears practically fixed by human nature once for all, and may at most be widened a little by refinement of language, especially of language in the mouth of poets. Understanding, for the very reason that it is concrete and full, lacks the freedom of the ”hollow symbol.’ A biology from within as advocated by Woltereck will, I am afraid, be without that never-ending impetus of problems that drives constructive biology on and on.

---

p284So 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:

---

With the mutations a clearly recognizable non-causal element penetrates into the behavior of organisms. Whereas my perceptions and actions are in general the resultants of innumerable individual atomic processes and thus fall under the rule of statistical regularity, it is a noticeable fact that, if favorable circumstances prevail, a few photons (not more than 5 to 8) suffice to set off a visual perception of light.

---

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:

---

But there may be a bifurcation in the following sense: as order is derived from disorder by means of the secondary statistics of thermodynamics, so may a parallel but different type of macro-law account for the production of large-scale order from small-scale order in an organism(Schrodinger).

---

p281

​

Theus was correct to question my citation of Weyls use of Delbrucks model
EvC Forum: When micro = macro ...
, but it was Weyl’s intention to say the governance is by

quote:

---

single ionizations, and thus one may conclude with P. Jordan, that ”the steering centers of life are not subject to macrophysical causality but lie in the zone of microphysical freedom.”

---

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:

---

While formal genetics has advanced by leaps and bounds during the last forty to fifty years, our knowledge in these fields is still very sketchy. As to the central problem of self-duplication, M.Delbruck has recently (1941) ventured to give a detailed but admittedly hypothetical picture of how amino-acids might conceivably be strung together in a pattern emulating a preexisting gene model by quantum-mechanical resonance at the site of the peptide links. Connection between gene and visible character, e.g. between the wing form of Drosophila called jaunty and its gene, is certainly the resultant of a chain of intermediary actions. It is therefore an important step ahead that recently attention has been concentrated on genetic control of enzymatic action; many experiences point to a close relation between genes and specific enzymes (cf. the recent work of G.W. Beadle and and others on Neurospora).

---

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 are
EvC 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

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

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.

Sorry that I'm a bit late with this one... 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 thata) 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 beings
c) 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.[.....]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.

Totally Off Topic. Do not respond to this post.

​

trying to bypass the Proposed New Topic procedure by spamming your PNT can result in your permissions being suspended

How did they started it? Darwinism was the one who started it?I posted on a proposed new topic and I got no comment on it but I will say it again...I don't get why it is still even being debated about "IF" the Darwin theory is true? It is almost strange to me how people just deliberately ignore the "facts" and the "laws" of nature in order to believe in "Darwinian Evolution".*Non-living matter does "not" reproduce. Non-living matter does not produce "living matter". So how can anyone logically even fathom such an idea. Evidence pointing to creation.*The earth's magnetic field's decay rate is perfect evidence that the earth is only 1,000's of years old. Scientists know that if the earth was older than 10,000 years everything would have melted away. No life would have been able to exist under such an intense magnetic field. ( evidence the earth is less than 10,000 years)*The atmosphere's helium content is evidence to the earth's youth. Helium escapes at a much slower rate than it enters the earth's atmosphere...if all of earth's helium came from the rocks decay byproduct(and all of it didn't) the earth could not be any older than 1 to 2 million years old. Since fusion also produces helium it is actually as the magnetic field shows us much younger.* Whale skeletons on mountains? Sea snail fossils on top of mountains? Sea creature bones and fossils on various land parts of the world? Fossils of fish still with prey in its mouth? Fossils of animals in the act of giving birth? (Obvious evidence of Noah's flood and rapid burial...and not slow and long Darwinian evolutionary process)*DNA begins to decay after one dies. Scientists agree that at the rate DNA decays there would be no traceable DNA left after about 10,000 years. Darwin didn't know this of course...as they hadn't discovered this yet...unfossilized dinosaur bones as well as fossilized show traceble DNA. (less than 10,000 years old)*Carbon14 decays at a decay rate that there would be no tracebable C14 in 40,000 years. Dinosaur fossils and unfossilized bones have traceable C14. (less than 40,000 years old)* Red-blood cells also decay at a rate that there would be no more traceable red-blood cells after 10,000 years. Dinosaur bones have been found with red-blood cells. ( evidence that the dinosaurs are less than 10,000 years old)* Haley's comet wouldn't still be coming around if it passed through our solar system anymore than 10,000 years...it has a portion of it melted away every time it passes by our sun.Conclusion: Evidences point to what the Bible has recorded. Evidences are against "Darwinian Evolution". There is obvious design and purpose as well as purposeful function in all of creation.So why is this still even being debated? Why is this Darwinian myth so die-hard? It is even more RELIGIOUSLY motivated than anything else I've heard of. This puzzles me. Any comments?This message has been edited by AdminJar, 09-17-2005 07:05 PM

Hi - I'm CK - you are clearly new. Let's me give you a little guidance, we frown upon:1) Simple cut and paste without explaination2) We use very clear defined topics - you bring up about 12 points within your post, not of which are on topic for this thread. If you want to discuss some (best to pick just ONE) of those - you need to propose a thread over in the New topics area.This message has been edited by CK, 17-Sep-2005 08:08 PM

Totally Off Topic. Do not respond to this post.

​

trying to bypass the Proposed New Topic procedure by spamming your PNT can result in your permissions being suspended

My point was actually very clear. I don't get why this is still even being debated when there really is no debate. I pointed out a few scientific facts that show evidence of creation and the Bible's record of what happened. I wanted to know with such evidences why is there still debate over religious Darwinism being still considered science that's all.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 09-17-2005 08:59 PM

That's great, but how is any of that a response to my post 21, which you replied to?And if you didn't mean to respond to my points, why did you reply to my post? Are you sure you're in the right thread for your questions?

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).

---

The thing is, engineers are not scientists.More importantly, they have no special training in Genetics nor Evolutionary Biology.Engineers apply the findings of scientists to practical, man-made applications.They do not observe natural phenomena, nor do they develop theory to explain these phenomena.So, why would you consider engineers' opinions of Genetics or Evolutionary Biology to be more trustwothy than the people who are experts in those fields?(On a personal note, all of the anti-evolution engineers I have ever interacted with on these fora tend to have a great deal of difficulty accepting ambiguity and uncertainty. They all seem to be very attached to the idea that there has to be An Answer to every question.Nature doesn't really cooperate, as it is messy and complex, so many of them look to religion or ID to fill in the gaps, to make the ambiguity and uncertainty go away.They are just smart enough to convince themselves that they are actually NOT using the God of the Gaps fallacy.

Correction: not all engineers are scientists. Some are. There are materials scientists (PhDs) working at understanding the behavior of materials, and biological scientists (PhDs) that are working at making {biological\integrated\autonomic} prosthetics and the like. They may not be experts in the field of biological evolution, but that doesn't make them non-scientific.I would say that science is the art of understanding the universe and engineering is the art of understanding and using science. In every field you will have people with "journeymen mentalities" -- they learn by rote and have little inventiveness to work in new ways of thinking. I know a PhD Biologist like this. Remember that the pre-med that graduates at the bottom of his class is still called "Doctor" ... 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.All the engineers that I personally know are NOT proponents of ID, and several are outright critics because they do know what {real design} looks like.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

In my experience, people of many disciplines, and especially engineers, are vocal critics of any form of ID.A good designer knows what real design looks like, and how the real design process operates. We do not see these aspects in any of the ID concepts.Real design brings together knowledge of how systems work with creative solution to problems and empirical solutions where theory fails to provide sufficient information. Real design combines features that {succeed\work better} into new designs so that the total package is an improvement in function and efficiency from the previous one.Look at the design of a space rocket, and trace the different aspects back to their roots and you will see a branching in ideas as you go back in time, where the engine came from, where the life support systems came from, where the electronic controls came from, and the "evolution" of those components will show the same branching back in time combined with bigger and more awkward systems.You do NOT see 1000 different kinds of rocket that are all traceable back only to a barely powered cloth winged aerodynamically unstable creaky contraption in North Carolina, that itself combined ideas that came from bycycles, gas engines, and gliders.The Design Tree is opposite of the Evolutionary Tree, it converges on a design from a lot of false starts and each failure narrows the field of possible solutions. There is also cross-fertilization of ideas from other {fields\solutions} where something that works someplace else is incorporated.You do NOT see a single example of a {design feature} used in one organism being transported to another organism because it is better than the system that organism uses.You do see SAAB coming out with a rear window wiper on their station wagon, and then the following year the SAME FEATURE on other brands.Real design is goal oriented. There is no evidence of {a goal} in the diversity of biological systems other than to survive and to reproduce. No species is any more significant biologically than any other. What's the goal?If real design is involved then why is the human eye such a bad {system\arrangement}, and why does it need mechanical assistance (glasses) to function for most people?Jokes, on the other hand, evolve as people adapt them to new situations or just don't remember them that well.It seems to me that the evidence of design, if you accept a designer in your philosophy, Yorick, is the jokester, loki, raven, pan -- the trickster of so many myths and beliefs.There is better evidence for Silly Design than anything that could be called intelligent.http://EvC Forum: Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

quote:

---

I would say that science is the art of understanding the universe and engineering is the art of understanding and using science.

---

Agreed, but let me reprhase."Most Creationist engineers I have interacted with have been educated and experienced in applying theory; that is, they are not usually educated or experienced in developing theory."Better?

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.

---

Yes, I would agree with this, too.

First of all, we have to acknowledge that,IF ID is true, then the final consequence inevitably is that some questions simply can't be tackled by science. And the reason is, that the answer "intelligent designer" is an end-point. The answer "it was designed" is a black box, with no opportunity to ask further questions. What further questions are there to be asked? There simply aren't any openings left, any hooks available. You could think of it as a roadblock: "Do not tresspass; further investigation is futile. What lies behind this, is unknowable". This, of course, resembles a lot the infamous "God of the Gaps". Wrong. Intelligent design is a method of design detection, and not a god-of-the-gaps argument. Why would Frank Drake’s proposed messages indicate that they are the result of an intelligence? -->No webpage found at provided URL:

Here we see a message constructed by Drake as a method of conveying the presence of an intelligent civilisation. This message consists of a string of 551 bits. That number is divisible only by 29 and 19 (and 1 and 551, of course). As the SETI website explains,
When this sequence of 0s and 1s is converted into black and white squares, and arranged in rows 19 squares long, stacked one on top of another for a total of 29 rows, you get the picture shown here. -->No webpage found at provided URL:

So, why is this message indicative of an intelligence? Or, for those wishing a more simple explanation, why would a radio signal consisting of, say, the first 100 prime numbers be indicative of an intelligence? The reason is simple:
(1) There is no known non-intelligent mechanism that can account for such a highly specified signal,
(2) There is a known intelligent mechanism that can account for such a signal,
(3) Therefore, that signal is probably the result of an intelligence.This is exactly the same methodology that intelligent design uses. In brief,
(1) There is no known non-intelligent mechanism that can adequately account for the origin of biochemical system X,
(2) There is a known intelligent mechanism that can account for the origin of biochemical system X,
(3) Therefore, intelligent design is a more adequate explanation for the origin of biochemical system X.The beauty of this method is that it is readily falsifiable. One must merely demonstrate that biochemical system X can, in fact, arise through a non-intelligent process, and intelligent design will have been falsified. Any objections?Edited by Livingstone Morford, : No reason given.Edited by Livingstone Morford, : No reason given.

just out of curiosity, did you honestly register here just to post to topics that haven't seen any activity in five years?

Actually, I was not aware that this topic has been dead for five years. Now that you mention it... (one of those "duh" moments).
No I didn't register here for that reason.