RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (444) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 5, Return To Teh Dingbat Buffet< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
BillB



Posts: 388
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2014,05:36   

Quote (Febble @ Jan. 23 2014,11:15)
I've certainly talked about emergence - I think it's really important. But I don't think it's a property that things have. I think a way of indicating that wholes have different properties from their parts.

The properties of a carbon dioxide molecule are different from those of atomic carbon or oxygen. So to that extent, its properties are "emergent" from the configuration of its more fundamental components, which in turn have properties that "emerge" from their more fundamental components, and so on.

I don't think it's even controversial. Wholes have properties not possessed by their parts, and they have them by virtue of their configuration, not by possessing Magic Parts.

And we call these properties "emergent" properties because nothing is added that wasn't there originally, unless you call the configuration "added". In which case what has been "added" is good old "information", which is lost when the configuration is destroyed.

But then IDists consider "Information" to be "Magic Parts".

I've heard AI and ALife researchers loosely (and often jokingly) refer to emergence as "Behaviour I wasn't expecting" because if so often gets used to describe a behaviour or property that the researcher wasn't fully expecting to see.

I did witness a mild argument once: One person claimed emergent behaviour in system x, another denied it was emergent - "It isn't emergent, it is exactly what I would have expected"

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2014,06:01   

Rather than "not expected" it would be more accurate to say not predictable.

At any rate, the issue has been around for a long time. I think it would be interesting to have a history of the idea,  because I think it encompasses vitalism,  souls,  and such.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
BillB



Posts: 388
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2014,06:13   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 23 2014,12:01)
Rather than "not expected" it would be more accurate to say not predictable.

At any rate, the issue has been around for a long time. I think it would be interesting to have a history of the idea, because I think it encompasses vitalism, souls, and such.

Or 'not predicted' - hence the argument anecdote.

  
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2014,06:15   

This excerpt amply demonstrates that phoodoo isn't someone worth paying attention to.
Quote
She kept trying to say, well, they are emergent, see, so that is where we get our moral ideas. I think she didnt even have a clue what she was trying to say, but simply was trying to throw out some concepts and hope they deflected the problem of finding morality in a completely materialist world.

If we are all just different mixes of chemicals, all the talk in the world about emergence doesnt erase the fact that its just chemicals creating the illusion of value.

The fact is, science doesnt even know what emergence is, they have no idea how ants make complex decisions, and how individual brain cells, add up to consciousness. Its a complete mystery,and she is using it as a defense for pulling morality out of thin air.

Each paragraph contains an egregious error. Phoodoo has been pointed several times to P.W. Anderson's short essay that explains very well what emergence is and gives examples. I don't think he ever bothered to read it. He still has no clue and accuses others of not understanding it. The guy is both ignorant and arrogant at the same time, with hilarious results.

This isn't an entirely new trait exhibited by phoodoo. He claims that I have no clue about dynamical chaos and that Joe Felsenstein cannot count. LOL.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2014,06:26   

Emergence is just interaction, surely? Two hands clapping, to go a bit Zen. It starts with our little quarks. They interact by gluons in menages a trois (Pretentious? Moi?). But free neutrons are unstable. Flip a down to an up and the whole has an electrical field, into which stray electrons tumble. Then (flips over a few pages) ... everything else! Ta-daaaah!

Phoodoo has beat a fine retreat, BTW. Back to where he can say what he likes, and is never gainsaid.

--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

  
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2014,06:45   

The notion of emergence in science, as I understand it, begins with a negative statement.

For example, the rigidity of a solid is not explained by the properties of atoms that make it up. You can know everything about the atomic structure and energy levels and even about interactions of atoms. But you still don't understand what makes a solid rigid. When you attempt to deform a piece of ice and it resists your efforts, you can't just say "Oh, atoms are hard and so is the solid they make up." Because when that piece of ice melts, you can deform the resulting water easily. And it is made of the same atoms. So it's not about atoms.

But of course making a negative statement does not explain anything. You need a positive theory. The rigidity of crystals is explained by spontaneous breaking of the symmetries of translations and rotations in them. The vacuum is translationally and rotationally invariant: it looks the same if you move by an angstrom left or right or if you turn your head. A liquid is also translationally and rotationally invariant: there are no preferred positions or directions in it. A crystal isn't: atoms form a periodic structure; shifting by an angstrom left or right shifts the periodic lattice; turning your head changes its orientation with respect to the crystal's face.

So the rigidity of a crystal turns out to be a property that is not possessed by the atoms constituting a solid. It only emerges when a large collection of atoms does something entirely new: spontaneously breaks some symmetries of the vacuum. Rigidity is a canonical example of emergence in science. Contrary to phoodoo's ignorant claim, scientists know very well what emergence is. There are well understood cases.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout

  
Amadan



Posts: 1335
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2014,07:55   

Tard goes in, tard goes out.

You can't explain that.

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2014,08:33   

Quote (olegt @ Jan. 23 2014,12:45)
The notion of emergence in science, as I understand it, begins with a negative statement.

For example, the rigidity of a solid is not explained by the properties of atoms that make it up. You can know everything about the atomic structure and energy levels and even about interactions of atoms. But you still don't understand what makes a solid rigid. When you attempt to deform a piece of ice and it resists your efforts, you can't just say "Oh, atoms are hard and so is the solid they make up." Because when that piece of ice melts, you can deform the resulting water easily. And it is made of the same atoms. So it's not about atoms.

But of course making a negative statement does not explain anything. You need a positive theory. The rigidity of crystals is explained by spontaneous breaking of the symmetries of translations and rotations in them. The vacuum is translationally and rotationally invariant: it looks the same if you move by an angstrom left or right or if you turn your head. A liquid is also translationally and rotationally invariant: there are no preferred positions or directions in it. A crystal isn't: atoms form a periodic structure; shifting by an angstrom left or right shifts the periodic lattice; turning your head changes its orientation with respect to the crystal's face.

So the rigidity of a crystal turns out to be a property that is not possessed by the atoms constituting a solid. It only emerges when a large collection of atoms does something entirely new: spontaneously breaks some symmetries of the vacuum. Rigidity is a canonical example of emergence in science. Contrary to phoodoo's ignorant claim, scientists know very well what emergence is. There are well understood cases.

But surely still, as a shorthand, 'interaction'? Interactions between atoms and molecules in pure form or solution change with energy distribution, number and the properties of the atoms in any surrounding medium. That there are discrete phase transitions doesn't go against the simplistic notion that collective properties arise from summed complex interactions.

--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

  
olegt



Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2014,08:41   

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 23 2014,08:33)
But surely still, as a shorthand, 'interaction'? Interactions between atoms and molecules in pure form or solution change with energy distribution, number and the properties of the atoms in any surrounding medium. That there are discrete phase transitions doesn't go against the simplistic notion that collective properties arise from summed complex interactions.

A bit too simplistic. Surely, if atoms didn't interact then there would not be any solids. Or liquids, for that matter. But just saying "interactions are responsible for rigidity" misses an essential point. Interactions between atoms exist in both liquids and solids. However, solids keep their shapes and liquids do not. The presence of interactions does not explain this key difference. So alluding to interactions is not an explanation.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2014,09:23   

Quote (olegt @ Jan. 23 2014,14:41)
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 23 2014,08:33)
But surely still, as a shorthand, 'interaction'? Interactions between atoms and molecules in pure form or solution change with energy distribution, number and the properties of the atoms in any surrounding medium. That there are discrete phase transitions doesn't go against the simplistic notion that collective properties arise from summed complex interactions.

A bit too simplistic. Surely, if atoms didn't interact then there would not be any solids. Or liquids, for that matter. But just saying "interactions are responsible for rigidity" misses an essential point. Interactions between atoms exist in both liquids and solids. However, solids keep their shapes and liquids do not. The presence of interactions does not explain this key difference. So alluding to interactions is not an explanation.

It's true - it's no more an explanation than 'emergence' is. I merely regard them as approximately synonymous, and it evades the slightly mystical quality that emergence seems to engender.

phoodoo, I'm betting, would waft away any scientific understanding of this or that specific emergent phenomenon because it does not extend to his chosen example - ants, or brain cells. He wants THE scientific explanation for emergence as a phenomenon - everything beyond the naked quark, if such can stand alone. And the fundamental, explains-nothing-by-itself quality of emergent phenomena is that they result from interactions, building onion-like up to and including the level of interest.

--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

  
Driver



Posts: 649
Joined: June 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2014,20:57   

Stephen B isn't the next Dembski but he might be the next Karl Pilkington:

Quote
Do I really have to enumerate every example of law/chance to show you that no example of law/chance can run off with the jewelry? Can a volcano run off with jewelry? Can a flood run off with jewelry? Can a river run off with jewelry?


Volcanos aren't burglars, therefore ID.


link

--------------
Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO "evidence" is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe? - William J Murray

[A]t this time a forum like this one is nothing less than a national security risk. - Gary Gaulin

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2014,21:07   

Perhaps a wormhole will open up and run off with his jewelry.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Freddie



Posts: 371
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2014,23:06   

Quote (Driver @ Jan. 23 2014,20:57)
Stephen B isn't the next Dembski but he might be the next Karl Pilkington:

 
Quote
Do I really have to enumerate every example of law/chance to show you that no example of law/chance can run off with the jewelry? Can a volcano run off with jewelry? Can a flood run off with jewelry? Can a river run off with jewelry?


Volcanos aren't burglars, therefore ID.


link

Does he have a little round head, too?

--------------
Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.
Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.
Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2014,01:48   

Something for Stephen B to ponder? Spontaneous symmetry breaking - watch superfluid in action.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5462
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2014,14:04   

Well, a flood might wash some jewelry away where it can't be found.

And a volcano could melt stuff.

  
keiths



Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2014,21:13   

Batshit77, first human to reach absolute zero in self-awareness:
Quote
Jaceli123, sorry Im not watching any of your off topic rabbit trail videos anymore. You have to do your own homework!


--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2014,21:31   

That would make BA the Bose-Einstein of intelligent design.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
sparc



Posts: 2031
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2014,22:36   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 25 2014,21:31)
That would make BA the Bose-Einstein of intelligent design.

You don't want to say that BA77 is cool, do you?

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2014,02:41   

Comprised almost entirely of Bozons.

--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1216
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2014,02:44   

I wonder how long it takes Slimy Sal to headline the following at UD....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news....5881953


  
Driver



Posts: 649
Joined: June 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2014,05:40   

Quote (Woodbine @ Jan. 27 2014,08:44)
I wonder how long it takes Slimy Sal to headline the following at UD....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news.......5881953


After all, the difference between 70 million and 6 million years is a lot more than the difference between 6million and 6000 years.

--------------
Why would I concern myself with evidence, when IMO "evidence" is only the mind arranging thought and matter to support what one already wishes to believe? - William J Murray

[A]t this time a forum like this one is nothing less than a national security risk. - Gary Gaulin

  
KevinB



Posts: 481
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2014,14:43   

Quote (sparc @ Jan. 26 2014,22:36)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 25 2014,21:31)
That would make BA the Bose-Einstein of intelligent design.

You don't want to say that BA77 is cool, do you?

I think he must be suggesting that BA77 is a loudspeaker....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki...........ose

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2014,16:40   

Quote (KevinB @ Jan. 27 2014,14:43)
Quote (sparc @ Jan. 26 2014,22:36)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 25 2014,21:31)
That would make BA the Bose-Einstein of intelligent design.

You don't want to say that BA77 is cool, do you?

I think he must be suggesting that BA77 is a loudspeaker....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki...........ose

I have three sets of 901s, the first purchased in 1968 and having a low serial number. The others were purchased at estate sales.

No sign of Albert , though.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
JohnW



Posts: 3215
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2014,17:47   

Quote (KevinB @ Jan. 27 2014,12:43)
Quote (sparc @ Jan. 26 2014,22:36)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 25 2014,21:31)
That would make BA the Bose-Einstein of intelligent design.

You don't want to say that BA77 is cool, do you?

I think he must be suggesting that BA77 is a loudspeaker....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki...........ose

It's tard superconductivity - where the tard just flows forever, with nothing to stop it.  Batshit77 reached this state years ago.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2014,18:02   

So far it hasn't climbed out of the container.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 1154
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2014,20:01   

Denyse O'Leary,

Which of these statements from your latest post doesn't belong?:

 
Quote
See also: Musical instruments pushed back by about 7,000 years

Artists workshop from 100,000 years ago

Sophisticated tool production system discovered, from 200,000-400,000 million years ago

Stone tools nearly two million years old

(Hint: you were corrected on this nearly two and a half years ago.)

UD link

--------------
We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.”
-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1968
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 27 2014,21:56   

Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 27 2014,20:01)
Denyse O'Leary,

Which of these statements from your latest post doesn't belong?:

Quote
See also: Musical instruments pushed back by about 7,000 years

Artists workshop from 100,000 years ago

Sophisticated tool production system discovered, from 200,000-400,000 million years ago

Stone tools nearly two million years old

(Hint: you were corrected on this nearly two and a half years ago.)

UD link

This would be big news if it was the God the designer producing tools at that time.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
BillB



Posts: 388
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2014,06:08   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Jan. 28 2014,03:56)
Quote (Ptaylor @ Jan. 27 2014,20:01)
Denyse O'Leary,

Which of these statements from your latest post doesn't belong?:

 
Quote
See also: Musical instruments pushed back by about 7,000 years

Artists workshop from 100,000 years ago

Sophisticated tool production system discovered, from 200,000-400,000 million years ago

Stone tools nearly two million years old

(Hint: you were corrected on this nearly two and a half years ago.)

UD link

This would be big news if it was the God the designer producing tools at that time.

Shortly followed by an in depth item in Make magazine - "DNA splicing using only a stone axe - a how-to guide"

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11172
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2014,07:42   

Chubs gets a guest post at UD!

http://www.uncommondescent.com/science....st-post

And he doesn't swear once! (yet).

He does a great job of showing how barren ID is, it is fine with lots of stuff being there or not, doesn't predict anything, does like Standard evolutionary mechanisms but proffers none of its own (brace for 'Desine is teh mekunism' numb-nutsery).

Editz.

Edited by Richardthughes on Jan. 28 2014,07:45

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 4686
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 28 2014,09:50   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 28 2014,07:42)
Chubs gets a guest post at UD!

http://www.uncommondescent.com/science....st-post

And he doesn't swear once! (yet).

He does a great job of showing how barren ID is, it is fine with lots of stuff being there or not, doesn't predict anything, does like Standard evolutionary mechanisms but proffers none of its own (brace for 'Desine is teh mekunism' numb-nutsery).

Editz.

Like always Chubs also manages to directly contradict himself.

- ID is not anti-evolution

- Evolution can't create anything.

It does go to show just how desperate UD is to have "informed" commentary when they make IDiot JoeTard a spokesman. We need to get him talking about baraminology and the CSI of Noah's Ark.

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"I'm a female retired marine biologist"

Whizz-dumb from Joe "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest female impersonator YEC.

  
  13313 replies since Dec. 29 2013,11:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (444) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]