McGarr178

Intelligence allows an animal to varie its traits surely

Surely having the intelligence to change your behaviour is quicker than waiting for mutations to achieve the same?

Has there ever been any studies on the effect of intelligent animals on ecosystems? (excluding modern humans) My hunch is that they would have a stabilising effect because they could shift strategies to fill in niches as they arose and fell quicker than other creatures could normally evolve into them. So the ecosystem could restabilise quicker in response to changes in the environment.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3832

I read the links you gave me. The removal of time from physics seams like a mathematical sleight of hand to me. A periodic event can not be substituted for time and remove it because the word periodic iplies it. I can describe all cubes by their width, length and volume but does that mean I have removed height from the world of cubes? Am I missing something? It is very complicated. I have tried my best but like I said it seams like sophistry.

Thanks for both for your interesting pointers. I read the essay on quantum gravity and it was very interesting. I don't pretend to have understood all the mathematics but I believe I understood the general thrust of it. I like the idea of an underlying theory, with neither QM or general relativity in it's basic equations, both having an "emergent" nature. Also, the idea that the ultimate laws of nature are akin to cellular automaton. It is cellular automaton that has influenced me most. I particluarly like the work of Stephen Wolfram. What I am trying to do is to create a generalised analysis of the relation between the starting conditions and future of causal deterministic systems. I have read a lot of chaos theory, complexity theory and network theory. I am particlary interested in how quickly a system descends into it's attractors. For the purposes of my analysis I define an attractor as any state that is part of a causal loop. That can be one of the preceding causes of itself. All non-attractor states descend into an attractor eventually. I'm interested in the properties of systems that are resistant to this descent. The average amount of steps that each state is away from changing into an attractor. One such property is the existence of "late" starting conditions. Another is the successive dampning and amplification of different parts of the starting conditions. This mechanism is used in the formation of our bodies when different genes are switched on and off. I find it interesting that some physicists are saying that we are already in an attractor and that it can be analysed as a fractal. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20127011.600-can-fractals-make-sense-of-the-quantum-world.html?full=true Wouldn't that suggest that at some point in the future the conditions existing right at this moment will be reproduced?

I aggree my point is more philosophical than scientific. Perhaps I was wrong to post here. I also concur that it is impossible to prove that an event is acausal. I suppose I am more interested in exploring the implications of that possibility rather than proving it. Regarding predicting an experiment. I was not offering indeterminacy as evidence of this. I'm talking on a more fundamental level. Perhaps the point is so obvious and trivial that you are missing it. Even if you did know all of the laws effecting an experiment you could still not predict anything unless you have initial measurements. If there are many different universes that are consistent with the observed laws of physics then the laws of physics can not tell us which one we are in. Perhaps there is only one universe that is consistent with the laws of physics but I imagine that would be very difficult to prove.

I am not talking about before the laws of physics. I have also stated that the starting conditions would be stated in terms of the laws of physics and would not violate them. What do you mean by "relies"? There is no law of physics that states how a wave function will collapse. It is probabilistic. What part of acausal do you not understand? It means with out cause - it is not caused by anything preceding it. In single instances it is unpredictable. I really don't see what you are objecting to. An acausal event brings new information into the world. They are first causes. primum movens. You can not predict the outcome of any experiment knowing only the laws of physics. If I tell you there is a an atom. How can you tell me where it is or how fast it is moving just by knowing the laws of physics?

in essence what I am saying is that the laws of physics do not logicaly imply a specific set of starting conditions.. they can not narrow it down to a set of one.. every time a quantum collapse occurs it reduces that set but not completely because you still don't know what the next one will do,, every time an acausal event occurs a new starting condition is revealed

Let's take the example from one of the above replies. For example; a case where a car accelerates from rest at 2m/s^2 until it reaches 10 kph, and then goes down the road at this speed is your "system". Your initial conditions are defined by how things looked at t=0 That is, a car with velocity 0, acceleration 2m/s^2. There are many ways to describe the motion of the car over time. Some of the descriptions are larger than others. You could could have a look up table that contains a position, velocity, acceleration for the car for any given time. In order to describe every time it would have to be infinitely large. However, if you know the laws of physics and the relevant initial conditions then you can work out the cars position, velocity and acceleration at any time. The amount of data needed has been reduced. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged The initial conditions would certainly not violate the laws of physics and they would be described in terms of them. Consider a universe consisting of billiard balls on a pool table. Let's say that it is an idealised newtonian system. The starting conditions of this universe would be expressed in terms of the laws i.e position, velocity, acceleration etc however, if the only information you knew about the system was the laws there would be no way of knowing what the starting conditions were. Lets say I create a simulation of a universe. My choice of starting conditions would not be determined by the laws that I choose. Even if you knew all the information for a particular time and the laws of the system you would still not be able to determine the initial positions of the balls. You could extrapolate backwards but you would still not know when the universe started. You would end up extrapolating backwards until you hit a logical inconsistency i.e a state that could be preceded by no other. A scientific theory states only how variables will change over time in relation to each other but does not state how those variables began with in the first place. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged If you can't see that acausality and indeterminacy is the bedrock of my entire theory then I am not sure we can have any sort of meaningful discussion. I was simply trying to guide you through my idea step by step so I could establish at what point you disagree with me. I have not answered some of your questions because I feel you misunderstood my position which is why I have been trying to clarify. I admit that the fault is mine in my lack of clarity. I'm not here trying to convice others of my theory. I came here to learn.

So, am I wrong in thinking that there is indererinancy in physics? Given enough information of the state of the universe at one point in time is it theoretically possible to predict the future? There are no acausal events? If something is acausal doesn't that mean it has no cause - that it is a first cause? Which ever interpretation you give of quantum physics we can not predict for certain when an atom will decay or where an electron will strike the screen in a double slit experiment. When these events happen new information is obtained about the world that was not contained in the information we had about the world before.

Thank you for enforcing intellectual rigour. I am out of practice. Regarding the enlightenment theory of the clockwork universe 1. A Short Scheme of the True Religion, manuscript quoted in Memoirs of the Life, Writings and Discoveries of Sir Isaac Newton by Sir David Brewster, Edinburgh, 1850; cited in; ibid, p. 65. 2. Webb, R.K. ed. Knud Haakonssen. "The emergence of Rational Dissent." Enlightenment and Religion: Rational Dissent in eighteenth-century Britain. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 1996. p19. 3. Westfall, Richard S. Science and Religion in Seventeenth-Century England. p201 Regarding the quantum collapse as being a source of NEW information in the universe.

By initial condition I mean first cause. A first cause is not dependent on anything. I was using the words initial conditions because I subscribe to the metaphor of the universe as a computer program. I am not trying to combat the definition of science. I challenge you to provide me with one established scientific theory that does not data compress reality. A theory can not be validated unless it makes a prediction. A prediction is a form of data compression. With a predictive theory you can determine a property of the world from another. You have decreased the amount of information required to describe the world. Regardless of that. What don't you understand or disagree with? If there is any acausality inherent in the laws of physics then new information is constantly entering the world. That is the point I am driving at. Do you disagree that acausality = new information? I apologise if my choice of words offends you. I realise now that 'initial conditions' is poor choice in term. Thank you for that. Even by your definition I do not agree that initial conditions are determined by the law of physics. How are the initial conditions of an experiment determined by the laws of physics? Am I wrong in thinking that the way somebody presents an argument is to firstly define their terms and then present their conclusions based upon them? I realise that defining terms in unnatural ways makes things difficult but does not necessarily make the argument illogical. Do I really need evidence of enlightenment viewpoint of a clockwork universe?? I didn't even mention Einstein. Hawkins did say that every quantum collapse defines an initial condition of the universe. I found the link. Maybe you should write to the journalist and tell them off for their loose use of the words 'initial condition'. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/3345641/Stephen-Hawkings-explosive-new-theory.html Now- can you answer my questions?

My definition of an initial condition is one that is not dependent on anything else. I see science as data compressing reality. In any model you have to have starting seed, rules of expanding it (which can be seen as starting conditions as they are also not dependent on anything) - these two combined can generate the rest of the system. There may be many different ways of generating the same system. I'm trying to draw a distinction between two different ways of generating a system. 1. inital conditions -> laws(initial conditions) -> laws(laws(initial conditions)) -> etc and 2. initial conditions -> laws(initial conditions) + new initial conditions -> laws(laws(initial conditions) + new initial conditions) + new initial conditions -> etc These are two fundamentally different systems. You can see how in 1. the influence of the laws increases. In the second there is potential for balance. I'm not up to date on cutting edge physics - so I ask. What category does th universe as described by modern physics come under?

Hi, I just wrote a short article explaining how, in a way, there is a big bang inside of us all.. http://phoenix-from-the-wasteland.com/blog1.php/2009/03/30/the-big-bang-inside-of-us-all What does everybody think? Cheers, McGarr