Consciousness Explains Evolution

[insane_alien]

mm, its worth noting that there have only been a few cases where the mathematics describing the phenomenon came before the first observation of the phenomenon.

 

and even then, the mathematics came from describing phenomenon with some amount of similitude to the new manifestation.

 

black holes would be a good example, we've had a basic mathematical description since newton and a good measure of the finite speed of light, although they thought of them more as dark stars than a modern black hole but none had ever been observed.

 

we then observed black holes.

 

the reason we could describe black holes before we seen them was because we could observe things that behaved similarly, namely massive bodies in the cosmos. we could then extrapolate as to what would happen under some unusal circumstances, then it turned out those unusual circumstances weren't so unusual.

[DIM TIM]

Well, I'm glad I stopped to read all of this before going to get something to snack on.

 

I think that you are looking in the wrong direction with all of this. The reason being that you instantly assume that evolution is right. Have any of the people ever stopped to consider that it isn't ? And if so, how far have they gone into their thoughts of all of this under the assumption that it is wrong ?

 

I am not a gambling man, but I'd be willing to bet the last dollar in my pocket that they haven't, or haven't gone as far considering this as the truth instead of evolution being true. Either way, I'll take those odds any day.

 

Just my two cents.

 

Just because someone says something is, doesn' mean it actually "IS".

Edited March 27, 2011 by DIM TIM

[Ringer]

Hopefully no one here 'instantly' believes anything. Part of scientific thought is skepticism of claims made, but on that same vein the hypotheses and theories that do make it through a good stretch of time are most likely fairly reliable. If you want to look at some evidence of evolution there are plenty of resources out there. Here are a couple to get you started:

 

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html

[truedeity]

The theory of the strong force is not just "algebra". They use algebra to work out how to calculate the results of experiments where the phenomena they are describing exists and acts the way they expect.

 

In other words, the theory is not the Algebra, but that the phenomena exists and works the way they describe. The algebra is the description, not the theory.

 

The reason that the Strong Force was proposed was that there were forces occurring to particles (protons and neutrons) that could not be explained by any existing force.

 

As an example we know that the electrical force repels like charges. So, why does the nucleus of an atom stay together and not fly apart, they are just made of protons (positive change) and neutrons (no overall charge). As the neutrons could not cancel out the electric charge, then the nucleus made of particles of like charge should fly apart.

 

But it doesn't. Something must force the protons and neutrons to stay together, and it must be stronger than the electromagnetic force. This is the Strong Force that scientists talk about.

 

Further examination of the nucleus of atoms show that the more neutrons there are the more protons can be contained. So this Strong Force is not electrical (as neutrons are electrically neutral - hence the name neutrons) but must reside in some other property of the particles and that both protons and neutrons must have this.

 

It is through more careful examination and experimentation to test hypotheses about the nature of the strong force that has lead to the theory of the Strong Force. The algebra that we have just describes what we have learnt about the strong force. However, even if we didn't have any algebra, we could still have the theory of the strong force simply from the observation that protons and neutrons combine as the nucleus of atoms despite the electromagnetic force trying to push them apart. As we observe a force that is not electromagnetic, and far stronger than gravity (as well as stronger than the electromagnetic force), the name given to this force is the Strong Force.

 

 

Well thanks for your interpretation. But it is true, that as the natural world seems so complex, and yet presents so much beauty that it is still amazing how often these forces or descriptions of our natural world can reduce to an equation that you can write in the palm of your hand.

[Ophiolite]

I hope qualified meaning, someone who understands the mathematical and hypothetical reasons for theorizing about the strong force. And that could be any good algebra student... 99% of the time physics is usually just algebra, but in academia the curriculum may have taken 10 years to reach there since high school, so I agree with you, though giving credit where credit is due, especially considering diff-eq. But still, its not beyond an algebra student. Plus, I didn't set out to debate strong force, and it is just an example. But I think if a person wants to ask why we have strong force; that it could present a decent starting point to build a case against strong force. But me personally... nah, I would build my case against interactive forces in whole.

I have no idea what your reply means. i see the words. I notice they are assembled in sentences, however the semantic content appears to be zero.

Either provide evidence that the strong force does not exist, or retract your statement.

[Edtharan]

Well thanks for your interpretation. But it is true, that as the natural world seems so complex, and yet presents so much beauty that it is still amazing how often these forces or descriptions of our natural world can reduce to an equation that you can write in the palm of your hand.

Einstein said that the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. With this, I disagree.

 

The reason that the Universe is comprehensible is that it has regular patterns of behaviours. One such is that if you have two things that are separate, but then put them together, you don't suddenly get any more or less of them (conservation of matter/energy). An example is if you have two apples, and put them next to each other, you don't suddenly get 3 or 1.5 apples.

 

Now, this might seem a trivial example, but consider this: Does it have to be so? It is possible that a Universe with completely different laws of physics and conservation laws could exist where such an effect is possible? Yes, but, in such a universe it would be completely irrational from our point of view. In other words, it would be incomprehensible.

 

Now, we have grown up and evolved (if you will, or created for if you don't) for a universe where the conservation laws hold. Thus it makes sense that when you have two separate things and put them together you don't end up with any less or more of them.

 

This is also the basic foundation of mathematics.

 

1 + 1 = 2.

 

It is another expression of the conservation laws.

 

Maths is just a description of the way the universe works. If we had different conservation laws (eg: where 1 + 1 = 3) then we would have a completely different maths, where the regularities of the new system are reflected by the processes we think of as maths. Just as their maths would be incomprehensible to us, ours would be incomprehensible to them. But, in each case, it would reflect the basic workings of that particular universe.

 

It is also possible that a universe could exist without any regular behaviours, and in such a universe maths could not exist. But then neither could any structure that relied on regular phenomena either, such as living systems and intelligence (so there would be no one to ask this question in that kind of universe)

 

So, as Maths is just the labelling of patterns, and as we require the existence of regular patters for our existence and for intelligence to function, then it is no wonder that we live in a universe that can be describe with maths (because maths is a consequence of a universe that exhibits regular behaviours).

 

Well, I'm glad I stopped to read all of this before going to get something to snack on.

 

I think that you are looking in the wrong direction with all of this. The reason being that you instantly assume that evolution is right. Have any of the people ever stopped to consider that it isn't ? And if so, how far have they gone into their thoughts of all of this under the assumption that it is wrong ?

 

I am not a gambling man, but I'd be willing to bet the last dollar in my pocket that they haven't, or haven't gone as far considering this as the truth instead of evolution being true. Either way, I'll take those odds any day.

 

Just my two cents.

 

Just because someone says something is, doesn' mean it actually "IS".

The "Theory of Evolution" is just a description of a phenomena that exists and has been observed to exist. The theory states that if a system (living or otherwise) has certain properties and exhibits certain processes, then it will have certain outcomes of behaviour.

 

Specifically, that if a system has replication with inheritance and variation, and that the entities in it have some form of selection that limits who can replicate, then it will exhibit what is called Evolution.

 

Whether this is data in computer programs, chemical reactions or living organisms makes no difference. If the system has those properties and functions, then you will get evolution (because evolution is defined as the outcome of system that have those properties.

 

It can even be shown to be mathematically true through Algorithmic theory -> Algebraic theory -> Numeric theory.

 

Evolution is a process that can be described as an Turing type Algorithm (ie: a computer program). As Alan Turing showed all Turing systems (eg: A computer is a universal Turing system) are mathematical as each instruction must conform to logic (a subset of maths). Each instruction being mathematical can be shown to have an equivalent in Algebraic form. Algebra is a generalisation of Numbers, that is using symbols to represent processes you can do to any type of number. Because of this, Evolution can be proven to be 100% true, so long as maths holds to be true (that is so long as 1 + 1 = 2).

 

Also, even if 1 + 1 was shown not to be 2, this would not mean that evolution is not true, just that it can't be proven to be 100% true.

[truedeity]

Einstein said that the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. With this, I disagree.

 

The reason that the Universe is comprehensible is that it has regular patterns of behaviours. One such is that if you have two things that are separate, but then put them together, you don't suddenly get any more or less of them (conservation of matter/energy). An example is if you have two apples, and put them next to each other, you don't suddenly get 3 or 1.5 apples.

 

Now, this might seem a trivial example, but consider this: Does it have to be so? It is possible that a Universe with completely different laws of physics and conservation laws could exist where such an effect is possible? Yes, but, in such a universe it would be completely irrational from our point of view. In other words, it would be incomprehensible.

 

Now, we have grown up and evolved (if you will, or created for if you don't) for a universe where the conservation laws hold. Thus it makes sense that when you have two separate things and put them together you don't end up with any less or more of them.

 

This is also the basic foundation of mathematics.

 

1 + 1 = 2.

 

It is another expression of the conservation laws.

 

Maths is just a description of the way the universe works. If we had different conservation laws (eg: where 1 + 1 = 3) then we would have a completely different maths, where the regularities of the new system are reflected by the processes we think of as maths. Just as their maths would be incomprehensible to us, ours would be incomprehensible to them. But, in each case, it would reflect the basic workings of that particular universe.

 

It is also possible that a universe could exist without any regular behaviours, and in such a universe maths could not exist. But then neither could any structure that relied on regular phenomena either, such as living systems and intelligence (so there would be no one to ask this question in that kind of universe)

 

So, as Maths is just the labelling of patterns, and as we require the existence of regular patters for our existence and for intelligence to function, then it is no wonder that we live in a universe that can be describe with maths (because maths is a consequence of a universe that exhibits regular behaviours).

 

 

The "Theory of Evolution" is just a description of a phenomena that exists and has been observed to exist. The theory states that if a system (living or otherwise) has certain properties and exhibits certain processes, then it will have certain outcomes of behaviour.

 

Specifically, that if a system has replication with inheritance and variation, and that the entities in it have some form of selection that limits who can replicate, then it will exhibit what is called Evolution.

 

Whether this is data in computer programs, chemical reactions or living organisms makes no difference. If the system has those properties and functions, then you will get evolution (because evolution is defined as the outcome of system that have those properties.

 

It can even be shown to be mathematically true through Algorithmic theory -> Algebraic theory -> Numeric theory.

 

Evolution is a process that can be described as an Turing type Algorithm (ie: a computer program). As Alan Turing showed all Turing systems (eg: A computer is a universal Turing system) are mathematical as each instruction must conform to logic (a subset of maths). Each instruction being mathematical can be shown to have an equivalent in Algebraic form. Algebra is a generalisation of Numbers, that is using symbols to represent processes you can do to any type of number. Because of this, Evolution can be proven to be 100% true, so long as maths holds to be true (that is so long as 1 + 1 = 2).

 

Also, even if 1 + 1 was shown not to be 2, this would not mean that evolution is not true, just that it can't be proven to be 100% true.

 

 

Their can be realities that exist where the fundamental laws that govern those realities are different, we do not live in those realities and can only concede that its probably true that they exist.

 

We could infer that if 10^500 realities exist in the multiverse, their may be at least 10^100 vacuua realities, and realities that are composed of vacuum space are very much similar to ours, because I believe their must be conditions met that allow for vacuum space to exist. Only those vacuum realities are what really matter for our science and mathematics so 1+1=2.

 

I have no idea what your reply means. i see the words. I notice they are assembled in sentences, however the semantic content appears to be zero.

Either provide evidence that the strong force does not exist, or retract your statement.

 

I really don't think that because I make a statement that I have to explain it for you. But you can start by reading up on the schwarzschild proton.

 

We review our model of a proton that obeys the Schwarzschild condition. We find that only a very small percentage (~10−39%) of the vacuum fluctuations available within a proton volume need be cohered and converted to mass-energy in order for the proton to meet the Schwarzschild condition. This proportion is equivalent to that between gravitation and the strong force where gravitation is thought to be ~10−38 to 10−40 weaker than the strong force. Gravitational attraction between two contiguous Schwarzschild protons can accommodate both nucleon and quark confinement. We calculate that two contiguous Schwarzschild protons would rotate at c and have a period of 10−23 s and a frequency of 1022 Hz which is characteristic of the strong force interaction time and a close approximation of the gamma emission typically associated with nuclear decay. We include a scaling law and find that the Schwarzschild proton data point lies near the least squares trend line for organized matter. Using a semi-classical model, we find that a proton charge orbiting at a proton radius at c generates a good approximation to the measured anomalous magnetic moment. ©2010 American Institute of Physics

[Ophiolite]

I really don't think that because I make a statement that I have to explain it for you.

I refer you to the forum rules. Perhaps to adher to the spirit of the law it is necessary.

 

8.Preaching and "soap-boxing" (making topics or posts without inviting, or even rejecting, open discussion) are not allowed. This is a discussion forum, not your personal lecture hall. Discuss points, don't just repeat them. - (My emphasis.)

 

More practically I imagine you come here to discuss ideas. If your ideas are not comprehensible to an intelligent and educated forum member you may find the discussion limited.

 

Thank you for providing the abstract of the paperby Nassim Harramein. (It would have been helpful if you had included the author name, paper title and publication details as well.) I note that this was presented at the 9th International Conference of Computing Anticipatory Systems and was published in their proceedings. As such it was almost certainly not a peer reviewed document. I note that google scholar can only locate a single citation of the paper and that is by a researcher who also appears to have some fringe ideas. Is this what your distaste for the concept of the strong force is based on?

[truedeity]

I refer you to the forum rules. Perhaps to adher to the spirit of the law it is necessary.

 

8.Preaching and "soap-boxing" (making topics or posts without inviting, or even rejecting, open discussion) are not allowed. This is a discussion forum, not your personal lecture hall. Discuss points, don't just repeat them. - (My emphasis.)

 

More practically I imagine you come here to discuss ideas. If your ideas are not comprehensible to an intelligent and educated forum member you may find the discussion limited.

 

Thank you for providing the abstract of the paperby Nassim Harramein. (It would have been helpful if you had included the author name, paper title and publication details as well.) I note that this was presented at the 9th International Conference of Computing Anticipatory Systems and was published in their proceedings. As such it was almost certainly not a peer reviewed document. I note that google scholar can only locate a single citation of the paper and that is by a researcher who also appears to have some fringe ideas. Is this what your distaste for the concept of the strong force is based on?

 

 

lol. but yeah haramein is not really what i have in mind. however, i think he may infact be the only reference anyone can find against sf. if i do have to debate sf, i will do it on another thread. and thanks for laying down the law. sf is still not the main topic, and i did mention that i didnt wana debate it. i still think we are all more geocentric in our thinking. and academia does not produce very many good thinkers, they are better at indexing current knowledge. but u know, we dont need that now since we have google