Creation Vs. Evolution = Free will Vs. determinism

I'm not so sure it such boils up. I have been able to notice that B.Russel's THOUGHT (which then could up to near today contain the carrer of Quine etc etc) IN A DISMISSAL OF A MATH proof WAY of Cantor ADMITS LOGICALLY (RUSSEL KNOWS HE MIGHT HAVE INVERTED THE WRITING BUT DOUBTS IT...)that he might have 'priveldged' not order. Gladhysve is correct to doubt this (mine) use of his work if there is NOT a relation between order complexity and life but should his notion of deceleration of biologial change exist (AND I WILL WRITE that iT DOES)then the nexus is between how defined acceleration and hence any slowing of evolutionary discourse (DUE TO HUMANS WRONGLY SPEEDING UP THE TALK) is. It would be possible by using ONLY THE HISTORY OF PHYSICS LITERATURE to show that this possibilty has either been excluded from evolutionary discourse philosophically or else the ICR conversion mechanism criticism and lack of application of Georgi's classic phenomenology are lexically but not grammatically necessarily the same thing! It may be that the test of it will ONLY be with purely random inputs if the voice gets this loud but I just dont know. Yes Will Provine in his personal conversion did not think that we had any FREE will but he like GOULD would likely have said that Aggasiz's difference between size and kind relation was obsolete. Freely thinking both creationism and macrokinetics seems to remand lingo that did not necessarily but might sufficently restict the reality to the e/c side. Again, I can say I dont know.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 07-29-2004 12:01 PM

Well, I am still after some such "determinism" that is determinable of a sort. But alas I am not "in" 'science.' Mark, I will respond, hold the horese first. WE NEED A SCIENCE of "kind of distance" In B. Russel's sense. Only after such can we actually have a scienitific discussion which could obviously oust c/e from any e/c once and for all. Croizat for instance could be read as to have created a METHOD against Agassiz's correlation (in turtles I KNOW to Kantian intuition)but first we must a have a first and a last which Gladyshev asserts one terminal of WHILE figuring out by Godel numbers of some other Calculus just what the STASTICS of strech and distance is (per vicariance etc or more reductionistic)IN THE THOUGHT OF transfinite enumerations DO NOT have the same quality to (for instance any Kaledscope of RECURRENT MUTATIONS)as the natural numbers do AS TO CORRELATIONS. I DEFINITELY DO PERCIEVE AND just about can say I also concieve for the nth time some order here which is just a number for aggasiz something near or ideal to FOUR"". This makes a different writing than Gould did on conditions of existence vs laws of growth. But Assume much more than we know just to get the words in.So if MY reading of Croizat trumps the NZ's than there might be the old style determinism IN the linear supposition of quantum Shrodinger MenTAL COPIES but this last is not recollectable to me but might exist in the OTHER END of some such equilibrium could it be ecomically existant beyond the mere definition I still attempt to write.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 07-30-2004 10:29 AM

NO,
Thanks for asking.
The prob. is that Georgi Gladyshev speaks about differences between Boltzman,Clausius, and TWO different directions of research in GIBBS but Shrodinger in a LECTURE on Statistical Thermodynamics discusses Gibbs in more than one "way" when the notion of "mental copy" is operative. I have not honed my understanding of Physics far enough to KNOW this but I dont doubt that some physicists and somescientists I might critcize for other reasons (F. Dyson etc) do or could know it. This is a matter of INTERPRETING equations, formulas and symbols but as I am having MORE problems than I THOUGHT were occuring here with the WORDS (let alone the signs for the numbers etc etc) this is not determining my own writings even yet, yet it was a fair question and I am glad you asked. Thanks. Brad.