k.e..
Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007
|
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 20 2015,13:00) | Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 18 2015,21:18) | Yes, if someone waves their hand over something complex and says, "the explanation for it is that it evolved" (or emerged), you have every right to respond that that's not much of an explanation, and you'd like more details before you buy into the explanation. However, unlike "magic", emergence and evolution are both known processes with some well documented and well understood examples. |
One reply later and we're studying the future features of "evolutionary theory" where I am relatively sure almost all will look at all the arrows in the circles around circles illustration that's in it and think "Huh?".
The programmed genome leads to all sorts of possibilities including a magic programmer there somewhere, at that stage of your evolutionary process. Especially where someone from the ID movement were explaining that part of the EES theory.
Although it surprisingly includes the vital "reciprocal causation" that exists the operational definition that is given goes into additional qualifying information than the standard definitions for it all over the internet have, which makes it a nonstandard operational definition. The ID theory does not drag that kind of baggage around. A reciprocal causation is a two directional flow (A influences B, B influences A) that can be either intelligent causation or unintelligent causation and which it is is tested by modeling (or at least determine how many requirements are needed to model the given reciprocating systems).
The evolutionary theory that even your Queen's scientists are now studying that in comparison to what was there before is rather revolutionary has a very serious case of the exact thing you like to warn about. And the only way to get rid of it to entirely disconnect from "Darwinian natural selection" straight onto a modeling method to in-silico demonstrate intelligent and/or unintelligent "reciprocal causation" events. Sal has for some time been the ruling ID expert on genome RAM, which makes it something you have to get more information on from the ID movement that has already gone into more detail than even I did for that part of the system in reciprocation with the behavior of matter and the cellular intelligence behavior that emerges from the genome built and maintained city-like cell. What is needed to rid it of what mucked up your operational definitions and at the same time make it useful for cognitive science and other fields already exists.
After thinking about what to do next, the most productive thing of them all that I can think of is code an algorithm that draws the reciprocal logic, also showing where Intelligent Causation is at in the biological picture and not (does not need to be). The way the drawing program has to loop a certain way to show the from generation to generation will sort out the arrows and not need two views of the same thing. I'm not exactly sure what it will look like but from what I can visualize the main features it will have is having to atoms on up cover all of what you call "evolution" even the origin of human intelligence that on a day to day basis works somehow too. A small program like that could be included with the new ID Lab software. Where I left off in the how it works (parts of to be used for Planet Source Code description text I needed to write before being ready to submit) needs to go into what the entire model looks like, as it relates to program forms/modules (Design, NavNet, IA, etc.) that each neatly contain some area of all that gets illustrated. From there the Theory of Intelligent Design pdf just goes into more information with the illustration you're tired of seeing all over, that does not show generation to generation but I think could. That would eliminate wording all that to those who think in code, who most want to know what all that looks like when programmed out.
The slippery-slope that starts at the EES theory published by the Royal Society just keeps on going and going until even Salvador ends up waving back to you as you go-by. And the lubricating illustration that it just happens to contain is too tempting for me to resist experimenting with. So I'll get right to it, then let you know when I have something you need to take a close look-at. |
Hey Gary I think you might not be alone. It seems that plain fucked up science blog trolls might be more common than we think. Your's and their oeuvres could be a subject for a study of the online psyche ward. It would beat having to camp out at dumpsters in alleys for interview subjects. Are you sure this guy isn't your brother?
Quote | the event horizons are crated to no permit that appear singularities in the spacetime;but taking be the the variable spacetime curvatures,these singulaties not must occur,since that the manifold be a bitorus,interconected with two spacetimes with opposed orientations in 8-dimensions.then to beyond evennt horizons,have several continuos spacetime,each with speed of light,limit.then the information falling in BH are conserved in each regions( different curvatures of spacetime,associated with "gravitational tension" and gravitational energy. then the raditions that travel against the gravitational forces of the BH,are particles,virtually created as antiparticles,that travel forward in time,then are weekly radiations,that permit observer the differents times to the same event,when seen into of the event horizons and out of it.then the spacetime follow not an linear orientation,because with the increae of the speed there are differents spacetimes,being mensureds.the proper asymmetry of particles and antiparticles appear in the BH,through the alterations in the spacetime( discreteness and continuty),as the "preference" by the universe by particles and not by antiparticles. these differences are in the primordial asymmetry that was created the matter and the jucton of spacetime as exchange dimensions,but conjugateds. |
-------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
|