Well, I don't believe in the distinction between brain and mind, so that's not gonna work for me. I do like the Latin idea.

How about res, which is Latin for "things". It's easy to type, isn't pre-loaded with baggage as an English word, and makes a nice pun with "resolution". Res is the highest resolution, the stuff that things are made of.

But who said there's a distinction in that initial definition though? The "mind" is a legit term that represents our "cockpit of perception" independent of where/what it is, no?

We need a word for "point" essentially that represents the most elementally conceived thing.

Are you sure you didn't mean "rem?" That's what Google Translate says that a "thing" is?

Any change in feeling of animo if the definition is agnostic to that concept?

 

I noticed that you qualified your statement with "in academia". Whatever you meant by that, the science of evolution has no axioms. We are discussing the science, yes?


You don't actually specify what question you're referring to, so I'll assume you mean "Does 'god' exist?" The question is of course legitimate (few questions aren't), but it has nothing to do with closed systems or the fact that humans sometimes ask themselves such questions. The issue with the question is that it is entirely too vague.

Does the god of Zoroastrianism exist? Does the god of Catholicism exist? Do the gods of pantheistic Hinduism exist?

Before one can reasonably address the question "Does god exist?", one must have a notion of what 'god' means. This requires an analysis on the nature (ontology) of god, which is much more difficult than simply answering "yes", "no", or "indifferent". In order for such an analysis to be effective, it must go beyond short, ambiguous claims ("god is infinity") and attempt to characterize what god might be, and the consequences therein. A deep enough dive leads to a full on theology, and if other people agree with you, a religion.

Personally, I quickly grow tired of religious discussions/debates when I have them with people of average faith. I find that most people simply don't give much thought to the articles of their faith -- their parents were Christian/Jewish and went to church/temple, so they're Christian/Jewish and go to church/temple. However, I relish the opportunity to talk shop with priests/rabbis/imams/etc. They're experts in their faith (some downright scholars) and have grappled hard and seriously with ontological and spiritual questions.

But my willingness to have a serious metaphysical discussion does not change the fact that scientific theories, such as evolution, stand or fall on their own, irrespective of anyone's spiritual beliefs.

Agreed with everything, EXCEPT "macro-evolution" (big difference between this and micro-evolution) which is WAY beyond science. I can perhaps afford a little more than layman lens into this here because I've been looking into this issue for many years.

The "macro-evolutionary hypothesis" which extends way beyond ”life science”, is causative philosophy couched in the appearance of scientific elements. "Evolution" is the catch-all term of literally everything other than the potentiality of external metaphysics or intelligence as the causative agent.

Don't think that just because it's canonized as "science" that this is true.

"Evolutionary theory" was born in an era prior to the rigorous understanding of what self-contained state-processing machines even were. The man who created it had positively no understanding of anything that was discovered literally a century later. One must now re-evaluate the totality of the approach to this theory from pre-car, horse-and-buggy 1850's onward.

It has been studied and promulgated by people who have no understanding of the things we are discussing that involve real science of information-processing machines, the hardware and software, and when you truly see it for what it is — a "hardware-software theory" — it is entirely vapid of true science.

DNA is NOTHING more than lines of code in a state-processing machine. Any "magic" you attribute to it is entirely metaphysical.

The question of "god" is not the same question as any other scientific question which deals with the workings of our closed system. "God" speaks to the concept of external causality, information, and substances origins ALONE. There is nothing more to know scientifically about this question. This is why it's called a "belief" or "faith." Everyone has their own. And any God "worth knowing" clearly “invented” or programmed man to “invent them all” to keep everyone entertained, and is not petty to care what name you called him/her on his "birthday card," because that's essentially what religions are — names on a birthday card. If he is that petty to care if the 10 y/o got his name right on the card, he is The Thing.

Incidentally, my "metaphorical story" wasn't that metaphorical. I was calling the "Grokk" the mechanism within us, and this mechanism speaks of an innate preferential "grokking" system. I think you can understand metaphor, if you can understand GR equations, FFS! :--)

 

I literally cannot believe you are using one of THE most ambiguous phrases I have ever seen in a scientific-minded discourse!?

Erm, I was quoting our futuire Silicon Overlords' history books. I forgot who originally said this, but "A chicken is an egg's way of making another egg" gets to the gist of the idea.

We can broadly categorize the teleology of life, as a phenomenon of the universe, under three headings:

• life is a random accident and has no purpose
• life has a purpose
• life serves a purpose

The difference between the second and third categories is the difference between life's purpose being intrinsic to life itself (has a purpose) versus being extrinsic. In the latter case, life is an intermediary step to whatever goal the universe is trying to achieve; i.e., life serves a purpose, but life itself isn't the goal.

For various reasons, I believe the second case is least likely. For a long time I believed that the first case -- life is a random accident -- had the highest probability. In the past decade, however, results from biophysics research has pushed me to the life serves a purpose camp.

One of the few definitive things we can say about the universe is that entropy increases. This is such a fundamental fact that we might even imagine that maximizing entropy is the universe's goal. This has merit, for under this assumption we gain insight into why physical and chemical processes behave as they do.

Of course, at first glance, life seems to thwart this goal; life is necessarily a low-entropy process. In isolation, there is no doubt that a DNA molecule has much less entropy than its separated constituent molecules. The key, however, is that to construct the DNA molecule, the entropy of the environment had to increase more than the DNA's isolated molecular entropy was reduced. In other words, building low-entropy molecules like DNA -- and proteins, lipids, etc. -- increases total entropy.

The same process is at work at higher zoom levels, e.g., a cell is a low entropy structure that increases the entropy of its environment. Because this happens at all scales, it turns out that life is an exceedingly good entropy maker. To sustain its low-entropy status, life needs to consume low-entropy energy and expel the high-entropy waste. The more complex the organism, the greater its low-entropy consumption. Simpler organisms, like plants and algae, can get by with low-entropy photons and whatever hydrogen and carbon are lying around. More complex forms of life -- like insects, cows, and tigers -- need to consume other living organisms to satisfy their low-entropy needs.

And humans -- in all our low-entropy glory -- are positively magnificent entropy makers! We devour our environment's low-entropy energy -- use it to grow beards, drive cars, and write internet posts -- converting it to high-entropy heat and waste. Indeed, we are uniquely creative in devising ways to increase entropy, filling the world with things like refrigerators and A/Cs. One might say that we are the universe's employee of the month at the entropy factory.

An interesting question that is almost never asked: Why does life have to eat life? Like water to fish, we're blind to the plain fact that we literally need to eat other living things in order to survive. Not just us, practically all forms of life. I believe entropy gives us the only reasonable explanation for this peculiar (and grim) fact.

From this entropy-increasing biophysical perspective, the evolution of life can be seen as an ongoing experiment by the universe to find more efficient ways to reach its goal. Of course, because we're humans, we tend to think of ourselves as the end product. But the universe is not done tinkering. It may turn out that silicon life is a more efficient entropy maker than carbon life. And in that evolutionary tree, humans are merely a stepping stone. A planet of entropy churning AIs can't appear ex nihilo; first you need a creative carbon based organism to make a 486.

 

But who said there's a distinction in that initial definition though? The "mind" is a legit term that represents our "cockpit of perception" independent of where/what it is, no?

"Mind" is loaded with baggage, foremost the mind-brain duality. To my way of thinking, the "cockpit of perception" is "self".

We need a word for "point" essentially that represents the most elementally conceived thing.

"Point" is a technical word; it implies a geometry. I don't know what you mean by "most elementally conceived thing".

Are you sure you didn't mean "rem?" That's what Google Translate says that a "thing" is?

"res" <-> "things" (plural)

 

"Evolutionary theory" was born in an era prior to the rigorous understanding of what self-contained state-processing machines even were. The man who created it had positively no understanding of anything that was discovered literally a century later. One must now re-evaluate the totality of the approach to this theory from pre-car, horse-and-buggy 1850's onward.

By this argument, we shouldn't consider Newtonian mechanics science because it was first conceived of in the 17th century.

Evolutionary science is practiced by modern scientists. It's gone far beyond Darwin's Origin of Species. When I say "evolution", I mean the modern theories of evolution.

DNA is NOTHING more than lines of code in a state-processing machine. Any "magic" you attribute to it is entirely metaphysical.

Your insistence that macro-evolution is not science isn't rational. The science of macro-evolution is happening in journals, books, and laboratories every day. That's what science is. Just because you don't like the hypotheses or the conclusions doesn't make it unscientific.

BTW, I don't attribute magic to anything.

The question of "god" is not the same question as any other scientific question which deals with the workings of our closed system. "God" speaks to the concept of external causality, information, and substances origins ALONE. There is nothing more to know scientifically about this question. This is why it's called a "belief" or "faith." Everyone has their own. And any God "worth knowing" clearly “invented” or programmed man to “invent them all” to keep everyone entertained, and is not petty to care what name you called him/her on his "birthday card," because that's essentially what religions are — names on a birthday card. If he is that petty to care if the 10 y/o got his name right on the card, he is The Thing.

You're missing the point. I don't care what you call it, but if you're going to include "god" in a high-level discussion, then you should be able to describe some of its properties in a meaningful way. However accurate or inaccurate, the Catholic God is well-defined; your god of "infinite source" is not.

 

No no no™! — Newtonian mechanics is axiom-derived mathematically sound physics that is ETERNAL. This is night-and-day difference from macro-evolution, a sensory observation-only based hypothesis.

Macro-evolution is a hypothesis created by a man who did not have the luxury of even understanding what a state-processing machine is! This is precisely what life is without any further definition—as you rightly define it without metaphysics: more sophisticated bit-based hardware and software processing states. His "observations" upon "animated machines," without even knowing what an "animated state-processing machine really is," is entirely ignorant.

Your argument above talking about "life and entropy" is assuming we know what life is. No biologist defines it scientifically, because they can't. This can't be overstated. There is no "goal" or "purpose" to a machine that it knows. It's an instructed puppet. "Nature having some specific purpose" is equating it with God — that is NOT at all what the theory is based in... it's based in haphazard increase in order and "need-based" thought.

Again: If life is NOT metaphysical, life is not defined any more than how you have been doing it: an "information-processing" machine, which is the proper way of defining it without a metaphysical basis.

A machine is defined by complexity of function alone, this is why we have no definition for what happens when a guy is on his iPhone one moment and "dies", and is found to be "dead" on a gurney and no longer "living." The "life" has NOTHING to do with the machinery, because the machinery is now "turned off."

The DNA molecule is nothing more than lines of code in a mechanical, instructed organic, carbon-12 framework. The ONLY difference scientifically between a soft machine based in organic Carbon-12 construction vs. an inorganic one is that element alone if no metaphysics enters the picture.

A machine has "no idea" what intention is, which implies the variable application of force over time to effect a purpose or feeling, also undefined. Nature is undefined, and so is any concept of what it's doing or what she's up to for any higher "purpose" whatever that is to a machine processing bits.



That's the world's most advanced humanoid robot, the Honda Asimo. No amount of code or hardware is going to instruct that thing to "Grow a stronger finger tip" because it needs to survive, unless great intentional effort, manufacturing processes, and code placed it there by someones with millions of hours of intentional work. And if it was "carbon-12" based, the same logic applies. And it isn't "hardly" going to "pass on its traits" to some other machine because it thinks this will "help keep its code alive."

This entire framework of reasoning and approach to how things work is born in an era where they didn't even know what a vacuum tube was, let alone the Univac.

"Life may have begun X years" means nothing until you define what life is. "Machinery began then?" No.

No amount of complexity is going to yield a definition outside of "machine," and no machine cares.

If one incorporates metaphysical intention into the mix, one can believe "life eats life" because there's something wrong at the spiritual level that is resolving. Or not. Perhaps it's not "wrong," just not "optimal," if the lives being eaten don't know the difference and even derive a pain-pleasure release. Who knows?

 

You're missing the point. I don't care what you call it, but if you're going to include "god" in a high-level discussion, then you should be able to describe some of its properties in a meaningful way. However accurate or inaccurate, the Catholic God is well-defined; your god of "infinite source" is not.

It's not well-defined scientifically. It's well defined philosophically. Whatever "God" there is is obviously outside of definability, so anything we say is putting it in a box. I don't care what you call that God — "a flying unicorn plasma TV." It's obviously able to be all of those things at once if it wants, and create this world, all the people in it, and all their concepts of him/her (religions). So any "well defined" stuff is not anything worth discussing scientifically in my opinion. Someone can create a religion this moment and type up all sorts of definitions of what it thinks "god is." Who really cares though other than he? If one has some personal encounter with said God, that's another story, and one's own personal scientific method, and I say that person should make their beliefs more specific due to that and that alone.

 

"Mind" is loaded with baggage, foremost the mind-brain duality. To my way of thinking, the "cockpit of perception" is "self".

"Point" is a technical word; it implies a geometry. I don't know what you mean by "most elementally conceived thing".

"res" <-> "things" (plural)

We have two issues to reckon with, as I see it: physical space, and the observer.

I say we focus on the observer for now and delineate all the system's readouts, bells, and whistles entirely before we move onto physical space, where we use the same tools.

For the reason, I say we define a "thought", and then we define the 6 interrogatives we use to derive meaning about that thought: WHY, who, what, when, how, and where — these words are "meaning parsers", because they are seeking meaning from information, or they don't even care to ask.

Agreed?

 

Check this out as an opening concept...

In computer science, a 1D array is like a mathematical set, except that, for every element, there is a container element called a cell, where there is added flexibility of addressing the logical condition of any element with respect to any other in the same set or in respect to another set.

By co-opting the functional addressability of every cell of a 1D array in computer science theory as being a separate state from the element itself, a model for reason can be built using mathematical set-builder notation. This addressability can be emulated via bijection.

Let A = {x: x → ∞, x is of every visualizable shape and size thereof, such that every element is unique in appearance in itself, or is rendered unique by way of spatial concatenation of any combination of shapes and sizes to yield a unique element}

Example: {A, 2, A76, G6, 9995, 77.30087, A, ]dj, ¥, §, $$, 21, 111...}

Let B = {q: q → ∞, q is a logic state T denoting every element is of greater magnitude than the prior element within any set with which it is bijected}

The set of countable integers ℕ is generalized and derived in any linguistic representation as a formal bijection between set A and set B. QED.

Examples:

ℕ = {one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight...}
ℕ = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12...}
ℕ = {I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IV...}


...

 

No no no™! — Newtonian mechanics is axiom-derived mathematically sound physics that is ETERNAL. This is night-and-day difference from macro-evolution, a sensory observation-only based hypothesis.

Newtonian mechanics is a physical theory, not a mathematical theory. It uses math to quantify generalized rules that are derived from empirical/experimental data. Newtonian mechanics is entirely "sensory-based", as most sciences are. In this respect, theories of evolution are no different. The big difference between mechanics and evolution is that the latter is much more complicated -- and, hence, more difficult to generalize -- than the former. But they are both scientific theories.

Axiomatic formalism is an entirely different way of making theories. One chooses axioms and derives theorems as logical necessities of those axioms. The theory of abelian groups is axiomatic; the theory of Newtonian mechanics is not.

Macro-evolution is a hypothesis created by a man who did not have the luxury of even understanding what a state-processing machine is!

Who cares? Modern theories of evolution include principles from biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, and statistics that didn't even exist when Darwin was alive. Modern macro evolution is not your grandfather's macro evolution. I have no idea why you keep picking on Darwin -- we're not talking about Darwin's theory.

Your argument above talking about "life and entropy" is assuming we know what life is. No biologist defines it scientifically, because they can't. This can't be overstated.

You continuously overstate it. I'm sorry, but it's ignorant to suggest that we can't do science until we have perfect definitions (as if such things were even possible). The entire point of science is to learn about phenomena, to increase our understanding of it. This is an asymptotic process. We've been doing good science on gravity for hundreds of years without having a perfect definition of it or even knowing what the hell it is.

Do you realize that you're effectively claiming that all the work biologists have done is unscientific because they don't have a perfect definition of life? Do you realize how incredibly insulting that is to biologists?

As for entropy, you completely miss the point. We don't have to know what "life is" to characterize the way molecules behave. The physics of entropy is the same for any type of molecule, whether considered part of life or not. We do not need to define life to see what processes are entropically favored. One can look at a cell, or a full human, as a miracle of life (for some definition of life); or one can look at a cell, or a full human, as a system of molecules. When we do the latter, interesting patterns emerge. Biophysics is the study -- the science -- of these patterns.

You're closing your eyes, putting your fingers in your ears, and repeating to yourself "It's not science because there's no definition of life".

"Nature having some specific purpose" is equating it with God — that is NOT at all what the theory is based in... it's based in haphazard increase in order and "need-based" thought.

So increasing order and complexity as a way to increase entropy is "haphazard"?

A machine is defined by complexity of function alone, this is why we have no definition for what happens when a guy is on his iPhone one moment and "dies", and is found to be "dead" on a gurney and no longer "living." The "life" has NOTHING to do with the machinery, because the machinery is now "turned off."

Actually, doctors have an operational definition of life, which they use to declare the iPhone dude "dead". So what?

The ONLY difference scientifically between a soft machine based in organic Carbon-12 construction vs. an inorganic one is that element alone if no metaphysics enters the picture.

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to claim here, but there are a variety of physical/chemical factors that make C-12 a better building block than, say, Si-14. We don't need metaphysics to explain why.

A machine has "no idea" what intention is, which implies the variable application of force over time to effect a purpose or feeling, also undefined. Nature is undefined, and so is any concept of what it's doing or what she's up to for any higher "purpose" whatever that is to a machine processing bits.

Gravity can be viewed as a variable application of force over time, and it's present everywhere. Is gravity a purpose of the universe? Do we need to say that the universe "knows what it's doing" to cause gravity?

You're anthropomorphizing.

That's the world's most advanced humanoid robot, the Honda Asimo.

LOL, "the world's most advanced humanoid robot". C'mon, that's a caricature and you know it.

No amount of code or hardware is going to instruct that thing to "Grow a stronger finger tip" because it needs to survive, unless great intentional effort, manufacturing processes, and code placed it there by someones with millions of hours of intentional work. And if it was "carbon-12" based, the same logic applies. And it isn't "hardly" going to "pass on its traits" to some other machine because it thinks this will "help keep its code alive."

Do you actually believe this? We've had self-replicating, self-modifying software for many decades. You can't imagine scenarios where a sophisticated program has access to 3D printing machines and grows its own parts?

This entire framework of reasoning and approach to how things work is born in an era where they didn't even know what a vacuum tube was, let alone the Univac.

Some two thousand years ago a fella named Democritus posited an atomic theory of matter. Today we have a far more sophisticated atomic theory. Should we scrap ours because the person who first conceived of it did so long ago? Of course not. You're off the rails with this argument.

"Life may have begun X years" means nothing until you define what life is.

I can only assume that, in matters of evolution, your logic circuits are broken. "Various dating methods indicate that cyanobacteria lived on Earth more than 2 billion years ago." I don't need a perfect definition of life to gain meaning from that statement. I don't even need a good definition.

If one incorporates metaphysical intention into the mix, one can believe "life eats life" because there's something wrong at the spiritual level that is resolving. Or not. Perhaps it's not "wrong," just not "optimal," if the lives being eaten don't know the difference and even derive a pain-pleasure release.

This right here is my biggest problem with metaphysical "explanations". They ignore the details that matter -- like the chemistry of metabolism -- and replace them with overarching human ideals.

Who knows?

People who study science.

 

It's not well-defined scientifically. It's well defined philosophically. Whatever "God" there is is obviously outside of definability, so anything we say is putting it in a box.

Which is it -- well-defined philosophically or "outside of definability"?

If we can't describe what "god" means, then it's a meaningless word and shouldn't be used in this discourse.

 

We have two issues to reckon with, as I see it: physical space, and the observer.

Whatever "observer" means, it resides in physical space, yes? Physical space is fundamental.

I say we focus on the observer for now and delineate all the system's readouts, bells, and whistles entirely before we move onto physical space, where we use the same tools.

The problem with this approach is that in order to speak meaningfully about readouts and such, we need to know what readouts and such are. Presumably they are physical phenomena happening in physical space, so before we can speak cogently about agents acting upon these readouts, we need to at least have a framework of physical space.

 

Who cares? Modern theories of evolution include principles from biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, and statistics that didn't even exist when Darwin was alive. Modern macro evolution is not your grandfather's macro evolution. I have no idea why you keep picking on Darwin -- we're not talking about Darwin's theory.

Exactly how is this true?

Your pointing to a wikipedia article to show "evidence of speciation" puts the whole argument to rest.

I'm very familiar with what's going on here beyond layman. Broad, global-level, mutation-driven, random-physics rearing speciation is the heartbeat of the whole theory, and there is literally none outside of one's mind. Intra-species fruitflies does NOT show this.

Sit in ANY high school today in America and you will be taught this hypothesis as the de facto truth at the expense of ANY additional approach. That is DOGMA. It is NOT the truth.

It belongs in a "Philosophy of Biology" class, and I have no problem with it there. It is a fantasy until there is ANY such reality involving global speciation. There is positively NONE. "Life's" diversity does NOT speak to the theory of speciation from random mutation or concocted "need." It speaks to intentional programatic determination, NO different than a "computer fossil record."


Let me be clear:

I am not insulting biologists. Biology is the foundation of medicine and physiology. I am NOT questioning basic mutation. I am NOT questioning natural selection even on a small level. I am NOT questioning even elements of "survival of the fittest." I am specifically discussing ONE off-shoot of philosophy called naturalistic macro-evolutionary development that has made for itself a religious-grade exclusive dogma beyond even "life itself(!)", that every last piece of functioning "hardware and software" materialized and was progressively "assembled" by "random" "survival-based thought" and "need to survive by carrying on genes." Which is ENTIRELY self-contradictory, because if it is "survival of the fittest," NO "machine" gives a sh*t about "having offspring" to reduce available resources. It is fraught with grotesque degrees of illogic, presumption and incongruity from the very rip. "Evolution" has become the "catch-all undefined phrase for everything causative."

If one is studying biology and trying to make claims concerning origins and such, and has no idea what a sequential-instruction circuit is, a CPU, a clock, a transistor, a logic state, or any such other FOUNDATIONAL principles of computation science which undergirds every binary-logic machine on this planet, and which undergirds what a BIO MACHINE really is, then they have no basis in creating such theories, period.

Also, Newton's work is BASED in math and physics, which are driven from the former's provable axioms that have practical, direct empirical application and testability.

"Global speciation," the very heart of this hypothesis has ZERO. As a brilliant physicist once asked the question to biologists at a conference, to which he received no answer:

"Are there any physics to this theory such that a physicist could understand, or that an engineer could implement?" MATH and empirical physics is the foundation of any true science, and you know this!

Until such time I can see more evidence than "starch and fruitflies", it's not even worth discussing beyond the myths of any other philosophy or religion.

 

In computer science, a 1D array is like a mathematical set, except that, for every element, there is a container element called a cell, where there is added flexibility of addressing the logical condition of any element with respect to any other in the same set or in respect to another set.

There is no such thing as a 1D array. Every scalar, array, and matrix, regardless of its "logical dimensions", has three physical dimensions. The cells in RAM chips are 3D objects.

Let A = { x: x → ∞, x is of every visualizable shape and size thereof, such that every element is unique in appearance in itself, or is rendered unique by way of spatial concatenation of any combination of shapes and sizes to yield a unique element}

There are technical issues with this formalism, but even ignoring those, your description of 'x' is unintelligible. What does "visualizable shape and size" mean? What does "unique in appearance in itself" mean?

Is "x → ∞" supposed to indicate that A is not finite? If so, just say "A is not finite", or |A| = |ℕ|, or |A| > |ℕ|.

Example: {A, 2, A76, G6, 9995, 77.30087, A, ]dj, ¥, §, $$, 21, 111...}

I get no sense of what 'x' is from this example.

Let B = {q: q → ∞, q is a logic state T denoting every element is of greater magnitude than the prior element within any set with which it is bijected}

This is completely incoherent.

The set of countable integers ℕ is generalized and derived in any linguistic representation as a formal bijection between set A and set B.

I think you're trying to say this:

Let \( W = \{ \{0,1\}^* \} \) be the set of all finite bit strings. As there is a bijection between \(W\) and the set of counting numbers ℕ, we can represent any number in ℕ with a unique string in \(W\).

Let \( \Sigma \) be a finite alphabet, i.e., the elements of \( \Sigma \) are a finite set of symbols. Let \( U = \{ \Sigma^* \} \) be the set of all finite strings of \( \Sigma \). Then, \( |U| = |W| \), and so there is a bijection between \(U\) and ℕ. This bijection holds regardless of the chosen alphabet. Therefore, every number in ℕ can be uniquely represented by any finite set of symbols. QED

 

Exactly how is this true?

What do you mean??? Go look up some current research and you'll find physical, chemical, statistical, etc. tools being used that simply didn't exist in Darwin's day.

Your pointing to a wikipedia article to show "evidence of speciation" puts the whole argument to rest.

Seriously? You're dismissing the evidence because it was organized on a Wikipedia page? The Wiki article was just a list of scientific experiments. Had I posted the links to each experiment individually, would that have made it more legitimate?

I'm very familiar with what's going on here beyond layman.

Since you're explicitly classifying yourself as "beyond layman", perhaps indicating that I should trust you on this subject, then it's fair for me to ask: what are your credentials in biological science?

Intra-species fruitflies does NOT show this.

You clearly have not read the research. Maybe this article by a molecular biology postdoc will help:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

Sit in ANY high school today in America and you will be taught this hypothesis as the de facto truth at the expense of ANY additional approach.

Strawman argument. You are disputing the scientific validity of macro evolution, which has nothing to do with what or how we teach science in high school.

"Life's" diversity does NOT speak to the theory of speciation from random mutation or concocted "need." It speaks to intentional programatic determination, NO different than a "computer fossil record."

Random mutation is but one mechanism of genetic variation. And it turns out that randmoness is quite effective, which is why we often use stochastic methods to solve very difficult problems.

I am not insulting biologists.

You claimed that biologists cannot define life, therefore their conclusions about life are meaningless. How's that not insulting?

BTW, what's with the all-bold sentences?

I am specifically discussing ONE off-shoot of philosophy called naturalistic macro-evolutionary development that has made for itself a religious-grade exclusive dogma beyond even "life itself(!)", that every last piece of functioning "hardware and software" materialized and was progressively "assembled" by "random" "survival-based thought" and "need to survive by carrying on genes." Which is ENTIRELY self-contradictory, because if it is "survival of the fittest," NO "machine" gives a sh*t about "having offspring" to reduce available resources. It is fraught with grotesque degrees of illogic, presumption and incongruity from the very rip. "Evolution" has become the "catch-all undefined phrase for everything causative."

It doesn't seem like you're well-versed in the modern science of evolution.

If one is studying biology and trying to make claims concerning origins and such, and has no idea what a sequential-instruction circuit is, a CPU, a clock, a transistor, a logic state, or any such other FOUNDATIONAL principles of computation science which undergirds every binary-logic machine on this planet, and which undergirds what a BIO MACHINE really is, then they have no basis in creating such theories, period.

You're clearly not aware of the huge influence that computer science has had on biology in the past few decades. I suggest that you throw out your preconceptions and start getting familiar with what's actual going on in biology.

Also, Newton's work is BASED in math and physics, which are driven from the former's provable axioms that have practical, direct empirical application and testability.

Sigh. Newton had to basically invent a new branch of math to describe his physics, which he did with little rigor or regard for provability. The axiomitization of calculus happened 150 years after Newton.

"Global speciation," the very heart of this hypothesis has ZERO.

False. Modern theories of evolution are based on well-established physical and mathematical principles. You don't even have to read any of the research to realize this, as any theory that contradicted or even ignored existing science would be haughtily and summarily dismissed by the scientific community.

As a brilliant physicist once asked the question to biologists at a conference, to which he received no answer:

"Are there any physics to this theory such that a physicist could understand, or that an engineer could implement?"

Google doesn't turn up the quote. Who was the physicist, what was the conference, and what theory was he or she referencing?

Until such time I can see more evidence than "starch and fruitflies", it's not even worth discussing beyond the myths of any other philosophy or religion.

Start with the Scientific American blog post I linked above. Then google some of the words in it. You'll find evidence if you look.

 

There is no such thing as a 1D array. Every scalar, array, and matrix, regardless of its "logical dimensions", has three physical dimensions. The cells in RAM chips are 3D objects.

I was using it in common comp. sci. software terms? They're officially called a 1D array in comp. sci. terminology, vs. a 2D array — if you google 1D array, every comp. sci. page calls it that, every book I've read calls it that?

There are technical issues with this formalism, but even ignoring those, your description of 'x' is unintelligible. What does "visualizable shape and size" mean? What does "unique in appearance in itself" mean?

Is "x → ∞" supposed to indicate that A is not finite? If so, just say "A is not finite", or |A| = |ℕ|, or |A| > |ℕ|.

Yes, it was supposed to indicate that — will remember that for next time, thanks. I was trying to show that essentially the human mind can create any potential symbol, whether 2D or 3D, and I wanted to denote an infinite set where each element is unique irrespective of whether it's a "unique glyph" or concatenated glyphs. Like ß is different from ßß, despite using the same symbol with two positions.

I think you're trying to say this:

Let \( W = \{ \{0,1\}^* \} \) be the set of all finite bit strings. As there is a bijection between \(W\) and the set of counting numbers ℕ, we can represent any number in ℕ with a unique string in \(W\).

Let \( \Sigma \) be a finite alphabet, i.e., the elements of \( \Sigma \) are a finite set of symbols. Let \( U = \{ \Sigma^* \} \) be the set of all finite strings of \( \Sigma \). Then, \( |U| = |W| \), and so there is a bijection between \(U\) and ℕ. This bijection holds regardless of the chosen alphabet. Therefore, every number in ℕ can be uniquely represented by any finite set of symbols. QED

Well that's precisely why it needs to be run through the Javierizer ;--) I was expecting you to do that, lol...

ℕ is just for counting, and not denoting magnitude ascendancy, right?

{car, bus, bike, skateboard, moped}

skateboard is not > car because it's the 4th element in the set, and so any infinite set of unique symbols is essentially ℕ? Cannot that set above be the first 5 elements of ℕ?

I should have created a new set called "WEIGHTED-N" — WN or something — because the point was to denote the sense of "increasing size" per element. That's why I was mapping another set with a "T" value for each element as reflecting a prior element's "increase in magnitude" since it doesn't appear set-builder notation can denote this without bijecting another set to it?

What you wrote otherwise was a more elegant execution, of course — thanks. How does the asterisk precisely work above?

 

What do you mean??? Go look up some current research and you'll find physical, chemical, statistical, etc. tools being used that simply didn't exist in Darwin's day.

I have. I'm really referring to GENUSATION. Small-scale trivial "speciation" can occur in nature, especially when it is defined merely as a reproductively isolated population. I am not talking about that. There is not ONE study of large scale bio-morphological change worth considering, which is the heart of the macro-evolutionary argument. You can see the clear repudiations here by an MS at U of C of the studies out there claiming "speciation arguments" that are allegedly consequential to the heart of the issue:

https://www.discovery.org/f/8411/

Seriously? You're dismissing the evidence because it was organized on a Wikipedia page? The Wiki article was just a list of scientific experiments. Had I posted the links to each experiment individually, would that have made it more legitimate?

Again, no evidence of large-scale morphological augmented-information change. See the link above. Nothing which shows Darwinian processes can produce fundamentally entirely new types of genera/organisms, new complex biological structures, or higher taxa.

Since you're explicitly classifying yourself as "beyond layman", perhaps indicating that I should trust you on this subject, then it's fair for me to ask: what are your credentials in biological science?

I have reviewed the literature and tracking it for quite sometime with a mind that can see the drivers. You can call me a layman if you want, that's fine. I retract the "trust" statement. I consider myself a bespoke logician, business person and musician, too, so no diff...

You clearly have not read the research. Maybe this article by a molecular biology postdoc will help:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

Again, none of that is addressing the real large-scale picture. None of those examples are discussing the meat-and-potatoes of the issue, and that is global, spontaneous large-scale sexually reproductive genus development from an asexual amoeba.

Strawman argument. You are disputing the scientific validity of macro evolution, which has nothing to do with what or how we teach science in high school.

Nope, the core of my issue is the insistent early-age indoctrination that says "man came from an amoeba." Patent mythology. If it wasn't mythology, why has there been DECADES of debate between "intelligent design" advocates and "macro-evolutionists" if the latter is "JUST" science? There would be no debate between apples and oranges! They are BOTH philosophies and beliefs, or they would NOT be debated by experts!

Random mutation is but one mechanism of genetic variation. And it turns out that randmoness is quite effective, which is why we often use stochastic methods to solve very difficult problems.

Variation is NOT WHOLESALE "new code" and hardware "showing up" as integrated, functioning systems!

You claimed that biologists cannot define life, therefore their conclusions about life are meaningless. How's that not insulting?

You're missing my point here... biology IS an established, legitimate science considering the study of what is CONSIDERED to be life, which is "animated machinery." WHERE that "life" came from is a philosophical question which does not belong, ALONG with creationism, in ANY biology class. BECAUSE it cannot be defined, talking about "where it came from" belongs in philosophy. As far as I'm concerned, the fossil record is NOT evidence every single genus came from a single cell organism, period.

BTW, what's with the all-bold sentences?

As I mentioned, I see bold as an extension of emphasis to impart deeper feeling to certain elements that don't carry enough for me. I'll try to not use them.

You're clearly not aware of the huge influence that computer science has had on biology in the past few decades. I suggest that you throw out your preconceptions and start getting familiar with what's actual going on in biology.

Again, I'm not talking about biology — which is of course tied to computer science and is 100% legit. I'm talking about the single-cell origin philosophy. Studying existing bio-machinery is what biology is about. Bio-philosophy is a different topic.

Sigh. Newton had to basically invent a new branch of math to describe his physics, which he did with little rigor or regard for provability. The axiomitization of calculus happened 150 years after Newton.

It worked though, didn't it? He proved it all empirically off the math he invented.

False. Modern theories of evolution are based on well-established physical and mathematical principles. You don't even have to read any of the research to realize this, as any theory that contradicted or even ignored existing science would be haughtily and summarily dismissed by the scientific community.

There is no math and physics showing the grand development of every single (undefined) bio entity into every single genus and species within it. I'm talking new information in the genome. Where is the new hardware/software coming from?
“There actually are some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants—all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or ‘polyploidy.’ In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced without hybridization. Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy ‘does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera’ or higher levels in the biological hierarchy"

Google doesn't turn up the quote. Who was the physicist, what was the conference, and what theory was he or she referencing?

I remembered it in a documentary I saw that was actually at the conference itself. I will have to find it.

Start with the Scientific American blog post I linked above. Then google some of the words in it. You'll find evidence if you look.

Again, familiar with it... this is not at ALL the same thing as showing the trajectory from a C-64 to a Mac Pro.

I do not "claim" biologists cannot define life. They CANNOT and do not. A machine is a machine. There is no difference between any machine other than complexity of functionality.

 

Answer me this basic question:

Where is the incredible degree of NEW information, hardware and software coming from in each stage of "evolution?" Mutation is change, not augmentation. Show me where the term "evolution" is not a euphemism for "showed up out of thin air." Like the skunk's scent glands. Skunk just said, "Sh*t, I need a new weapon here, let me spawn one video-game style!" All of the trillions of cells and interrelated mechanisms to the Skunk's brain and programmed codal behavior just appeared over n years because, well...?

Also, answer me why there are debates from decades of degreed evolutionists vs. creationists if the former is a science only and not a philosophy? Creationism is a philosophy. If macro-evolution was exclusively a science, they wouldn't bother debating. Oranges don't debate apples.

If I had kids in the education system, I wouldn't want EITHER of them proposed to him or her in a science classroom. Philosophy? Sure, and show equal weight to metaphysical explanations.

 

Whatever "observer" means, it resides in physical space, yes? Physical space is fundamental.


The problem with this approach is that in order to speak meaningfully about readouts and such, we need to know what readouts and such are. Presumably they are physical phenomena happening in physical space, so before we can speak cogently about agents acting upon these readouts, we need to at least have a framework of physical space.

We don’t know if the observer is entirely in physical space. What if the observer starts in the mind?

We don’t technically know if readouts and such are physical space or not. All we know is what the mind space is telling us about the physical, so doesn’t it make sense to attempt to dissect the thought tools we’re using that seem to know the difference between mind space and physical space?

 

I was using it in common comp. sci. software terms? They're officially called a 1D array in comp. sci. terminology, vs. a 2D array — if you google 1D array, every comp. sci. page calls it that, every book I've read calls it that?

The use of "1D" when applied to a data structure, like an array, indicates "organizational dimension", which refers to the number of parameters needed to access an element from the structure. The elements in a 1D structure are accessed using a single parameter, e.g., "array[5]" gives us the sixth element (in a zero-indexed system).

As a data structure, a "2D" array (aka matrix) has two "organizational dimensions" -- we need two parameters to access any element of the structure: "matrix[0][2]" gives us the third column of the first row.

This use of "organizational dimension" is an abstraction of convenience, and very different from the standard technical uses of dimension. For example, a "1D" array that can hold five values is an element of a 5D mathematical space. A "2D" matrix that has four rows and three columns can be seen as an element of a 12D space, or as a transformation that takes 4D arrays from a 4D space to a 3D space.

The most familiar usage of "dimension" refers to spatial dimension. By the Dimensions Accord of 2020, I've agreed to assume that physical space and everything in it is 3D. Since you mentioned "addressable cells", which I take to represent a physical thing (like RAM), I pointed out that arrays and such are 3D objects.

The takeaway from all of this is that the only dimensions we should be worrying about are spatial dimensions (all the others are abstractions). And since everything physical is 3D, we needn't bother mentioning dimensionality at all.

I was trying to show that essentially the human mind can create any potential symbol, whether 2D or 3D, and I wanted to denote an infinite set where each element is unique irrespective of whether it's a "unique glyph" or concatenated glyphs. Like ß is different from ßß, despite using the same symbol with two positions.

By definition, every element in a set is unique (e.g., the set {a,a,a,} has a single element), so you don't have to explicitly specify uniqueness. I'll show you how to handle concatenation at the end, below.

ℕ is just for counting, and not denoting magnitude ascendancy, right?

{car, bus, bike, skateboard, moped}

skateboard is not > car because it's the 4th element in the set, and so any infinite set of unique symbols is essentially ℕ? Cannot that set above be the first 5 elements of ℕ?

A couple of relevant notes here. Taken strictly as a set, ℕ has no order because sets are unordered by definition. The sets {1, 2, 3, 4, 5} and {2, 5, 1, 3, 4} are the same set.

We can, however, induce an order by defining a binary relation "<" between elements of ℕ. This creates a subset of ℕxℕ consisting of ordered pairs (m, n) -- such as (1, 2), (1, 3), and (42, 109) -- which we read as "m is less than n". As every element in ℕ can be put in a strict order under this relation, we say that ℕ (with this relation) is a totally ordered set. In this context, however, ℕ is no longer just a set -- it has more mathematical structure, namely, the additional structure of a binary relation.

This usage of ℕ as an ordered set leads to the ordinal numbers.

How does this play out in terms of magnitude? Well, we're free to say that the "less than" relation imposes a magnitude relation on ℕ: m has less magnitude than m if and only if (m, n) is in "<". This corresponds nicely with our intuitions of magnitudes and sizes, and gives us the notion of cardinal numbers.

Note, however, that we do not need an order to able to characterize magnitude. For example, a common notion of magnitude is the distance of a quantity from some reference quantity. To define distance, we need additional mathematical structure -- a metric in a metric space, or an inner product in a geometric space -- but we do not need an order. The most famous example of an unordered structure where magnitudes are nonetheless defined is ℂ (as a vector space over itself with the usual arithmetic). (Fun fact: using the magnitudes of complex numbers we can induce a partial order on ℂ, based on how far each point is from the 0 vector.)

Now let's consider your set:

T = {car, bus, bike, skateboard, moped}

As a set, by definition, T is unordered. We can induce an order by defining a "<" relation. Let's say that R1 is the relation "a is slower than b", where "slower" refers to maximum speed. Then,

R1 = { (skateboard, bike), (skateboard, moped), (skateboard, bus), (skateboard, car), (bike, moped), (bike, bus), (bike, car), (moped, bus), (moped, car), (bus, car) }

With this relation R1, we can now say things like "bike < car", though I'm not sure I'd want to say that the magnitude of bike is less than the magnitude of car. However, suppose we define a relation R2 as "a has fewer characters than b". Then,

R2 = { (car, bike), (car, moped), (car, skateboard), (bus, bike), (bus, moped), (bus, skateboard), (bike, moped), (bike, skateboard), (moped, skateboard) }

Notice that this is not a total order (neither "car < bus" nor "bus < car" is a relation). But, in terms of string lengths, it makes sense to say that the magnitude of the string "car" is less than the magnitude of the string "skateboard".

So back to your questions:

"any infinite set of unique symbols is essentially ℕ?" Taken strictly as sets (unordered collection of unique elements), then yes, any countably infinite set is isomorphic to ℕ. The canonical way to determine whether a set A is isomorphic to ℕ is to check its cardinality: A is isomorphic to ℕ if and only if |A| = |ℕ|. This guarantees a bijection (and hence an isomorphism) between the two sets.

"Cannot that set above be the first 5 elements of ℕ?" It depends on how much additional structure we're bringing in with ℕ. As an ordered set, we can do it with a suitable "<" relation -- here, string lengths is a better relation, as it is implicitly unbounded, whereas the vehicle relation would be difficult to sustain for more than a few dozen elements. Also note that, as we add more structure to ℕ (such as arithmetic) it becomes more difficult to sustain the isomorphism. What's "car + bus"?

The takeaway is that there are many levels of abstraction, each with a ton of details that are unique to that level. We can validly think of ℕ as an unordered set, or as ordinal values indicating positions in an ordered sequence, or as cardinal values indicating magnitude, or as an arithmetic structure, or as an algebraic structure, etc. As long as we're very clear and precise about the levels under consideration, we can make cogent and insightful statements. If we're not clear and precise, then it's anyone's guess if what we're saying has any meaning (much less validity).

I should have created a new set called "WEIGHTED-N" — WN or something — because the point was to denote the sense of "increasing size" per element.

An issue with this is that presumably you'll need ℕ itself to specify the weights, which would be begging the question (i.e., of course ℕ is isomorphic to ℕ).

A standard construction of ℕ uses successive inclusions of the empty set to provide the "weighting". For example, the first number in ℕ is the empty set \( \emptyset \). The next number is a set containing the empty set. The nth number is the union of the empty set with the previous set: \[ \begin{align} 0 &\to \emptyset \\ 1 &\to \{\emptyset\} \\ 2 &\to \{\emptyset, \{\emptyset\}\} \\ 3 &\to \{ \emptyset, \{\emptyset, \{\emptyset\}\}\} \\ &\vdots \end{align} \]

That's why I was mapping another set with a "T" value for each element as reflecting a prior element's "increase in magnitude" since it doesn't appear set-builder notation can denote this without bijecting another set to it?

I take it that you were trying to incorporate the notion of "carry digits" in base-2 with your set of symbols, but -- as you surmised -- this isn't a feasible construction. Sets are unordered structures, whereas "carry digits" are specifically ordinal (positional), and so require a higher level of structure than sets can provide.

The inability to express "carry digits" set-wise speaks to what I've been saying all along: computation requires multiple layers of abstraction (complexity of structure). A computer cannot add logic states. To make it seem like it does, we have to physically implement all the various abstraction layers in such a way that they act in concert. Without all these details, there is no computation.

What you wrote otherwise was a more elegant execution, of course — thanks. How does the asterisk precisely work above?

Thanks! I really appreciate that.

The asterisk -- the Kleene star -- is delightfully simple. Let \( S \) be a set of symbols, e.g., \( S = \{ a, b, c \} \). Then, \( S^* \) is the set of all strings comprised of symbols in \( S \). We can think of * as the concatenation operator: "a", "aa", "aaaaaaa", etc. are all strings of \( S^* \), as are "abc", "aabccc", "bbbb", etc. We can define a bijection between \( S^* \) and the counting numbers, therefore its cardinality is |ℕ|. This applies to any finite set of symbols.