13
   

the universe and space....?

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2003 02:39 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
Ican

Decided to give this a try before leaving...


THANK YOU.

I know you have presented this argument several times in Abuzz. For all I know, you may have presented it several times here in able2know. I wanted you to present it again here in this forum, and you have, and I want you to know that I appreciate it very much.

I agree that the test you described for trying to determine if the deck was "stacked" (i.e., biased, ) is not relevant to that determination.

Instead, I recommend analyzing the recorded history of all the five-card hands dealt over a significantly large period. I want a large period so that I may validly apply the Law of Large Numbers.

If were to find that a particular hand (or hands) were dealt a disproportionate number of times (i.e., disproportionate to its calculated probability of occurrence), I would suspect the deck was biased. Next I would examine the frequency with with such hand or hands occurred at particular "player" positions. If these hands occurred a disproportionate number of times at a particular position (or postions), I would Shocked leap Shocked to the conclusion that the deck was biased by something or someone.

This is the way, I use to test computer random-number generators that I required for my development engineering work. That is, I would, via computer, examine the frequency with which various sequences of numbers occurred in a long sequence generated by a random number generator that I was working with. If their occurrences were disproportionate to their probability of occurrence, I would first extend the size of the sample. If the bias did not disappear or at least become smaller, I would Shocked leap Shocked to the conclusion that the generator was biased by something or someone.

Now let's apply this type of analysis to the evolution of life on this planet. I'm going to assume here that various allegations by various geologists, anthropologists, and biologists are true. I infer these scientists agree that the fossil record consists of layers of stuff. Some of these layers contain fossilized organisms. Different layers with fossilized organisms generally contain fossils of different sets of organisms. Others of these layers consist of zero fossil organisms. These scientists allege all this is due to the occurrence of a sequence of environmental catastrophes over the alleged approximately 5 billion years of our earth's existence.

The surprising thing about all this is the seemingly relentless trend from lower intelligence organisms in the lower layers to higher intelligence organisms in the higher layers, despite the fact that many of the fosssilized layers are frequently separated by sometimes very thick non-fossilized layers. Scientists have various theories for this lack of randomness in the evolution of life. So do I! I Shocked leap Shocked to the conclusion that evolution was biased by something or someone.

One could guess that the sequence of environmental catastrophes is itself the cause of the lack of randomness. But does that explain why each fossilized layer, regardless of its degree of separation by non-fossilized layers from more recent and less recent layers, shows evolution of increasingly intelligent organisms. I think not. The apparent relentless evolution of intelligent life is a definite bias in what is alleged by some to be an undirected chance plus natural selection, random process.

However, I agree in advance that much that is currently allegedly agreed may not be alegedly agreed subsequently. So what else is new? Scientists plod along as best they can and seem to accumulate knowledge despite their time consuming and flawed trial and error approach to discovery.

So I am back to my calculation. I'll amend it in deference to Terry. Let's theorize that the probability of undirected chance plus natural selection is higher than I said. Let's say it's not 0.0023 x a trillionth x a moogolth. Let's say it's all the way up to,

P =a trillionth x a moogolth. :wink:
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2003 07:24 pm
Ican,
You misinterpret (O'Boy) my stance. I think that life itself skews probability theory.

What WE both suspect is that there hasn't been enough time for things to be as they are.

You seem to be questing for a director to speed up evolution a bit. I need a little more time Smile for random actions to work as we see it.

What I don't think is that there has been enough time (15 billion-10>9) years to form the Universe as we see it. Especially since the Solar System allegedly formed some 8 billion years ago and hasn't changed much since. It has cooled off a bit and some flotsam and jetsam has been cleaned up a bit but it's still about the same as it allegedly was when The Universe was 1/2 the age it is now. (Both of these notions are also a bit shakey) Confused

re SO MECH,

Naah, once it becomes alive (self replicating) then whatever it is has a modicum (very damn little) of intelligence simply as a result of choosing to replicate. However I tend to doubt that a prion divides because"it wants a family".No more than a molecule of Oxygen hunts up a couple of Sulphurs for a "menage-a-trois". Happy Thoughts, M.
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2003 07:43 pm
BoGoWo,
Random mutations are just that. But the selection (direction) is made by survival. Even down to prions and perhaps smaller than that.

"The direction is inherent and purely accidental" is described by chance. Fair enough Exclamation But survival is serving as a "director". And "Nothing succeeds like success". Hence "directed chance". The combinations are random. but frequency of occurrence is directed by survival.

Any body got a new word for that phenomenon? Or KNOW an old one that describes it? It could perhaps be evolution but at the molecular level that word seem a bit presumptous. "Spontaneous Generation" perhaps?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2003 07:55 pm
Survival of the fittest.
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2003 07:57 pm
Note on time, BoGoWo,

re. TIME. That is what I thought also. That time is merely a human construction. Argued it too Embarrassed 'Tain't so.

For one-- Wave length of electromagnetic radiation is inversly proportional to its frequency. The energies (information) carried by a -photon-wave-particle- vary by wave length and frequency, and also by the strength of an accelerated frame (gravity field).

This implies that "time" is a real component of the cosmos and that time would exist even if we did not.

Wave lengths are measured with a meterstick but frequencies are measured by time. CPS= cycles per second-- Hertz etc.

I could go a bit further with this but perhaps Terry will pick up. She's a bit quicker Smile than I.

I'm going up to look at Mars with a neighbors 4"reflector. Good evening M.
0 Replies
 
THe ReDHoRN
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2003 09:17 pm
What we call time only contain passing moments measured in increments while living in a planet rotating around a ball of fire and gas.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2003 09:46 pm
We humans live on the basis of those moments measured in increments based on our planet, but what of others that have different basis of times? What relationship does our days have with other planets and galaxies? c.i.
0 Replies
 
THe ReDHoRN
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2003 09:53 pm
The planet changes seasons shift, the days go on, but time is only something that we have created...in my own personal opinion. If you happen to disagree please tell me what you believe in otherwise.
0 Replies
 
BoGoWo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2003 10:16 pm
Mech; we're getting closer together again.

However, in your ""The direction is inherent and purely accidental" is described by chance. Fair enough But survival is serving as a "director". And "Nothing succeeds like success". Hence "directed chance". The combinations are random. but frequency of occurrence is directed by survival. "

It is not the 'chance occurrance of mutations' that is being directed here; it is the environmental 'testing' of those mutations which effects (or directs, if you will) the end product organism to be more or less able to survive, and reproduce.

THERE IS NO 'DIRECTION' OF 'CHANCE' TAKING PLACE!!!!!!

and re: time - "This implies that "time" is a real component of the cosmos and that time would exist even if we did not."

the frequencies of em radiation are as you say proportional to wavelength or the incremental size of the 'message'; what we have here is not the use of time to measure frequency, but rather a handy yardstick for accurately describing temporal relationships here on earth in 'universal' terms!
Time is merely a relationship, which we can use.

And this answers C.I.'s queery also; we do not measure time in days, but use composites (nanosec., parsec.) of the second based upon em radiation, and i expect those relationships would be the same at galaxies far, far, away.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2003 10:24 pm
Red, We didn't create time; we only attached some labels to universal phenomenon. Time happens with or without the existence of man. The aging of stars will continue with or without man. That man would label the life of stars in billions of years, or the speed of light to light years are all man-made concepts, but they would continue to 'perform' those 'concepts' without man's observations. Now, back to the original question; how does our concept of time relate to the concept of time in other galaxies? Is the billions of years in the life span of a star the same in other galaxies as they are to us on earth? Shorter? Longer? Same? c.i.
0 Replies
 
THe ReDHoRN
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Aug, 2003 10:58 pm
I see where your going, however when i said we created time, i meant in an idealistic sense. Nothing proven to be factual and if i meant that way then it would serve as being somewhat contradictory as to what I said previously before that. Time is an "illusion" we created however due to the different forms of gravity and the way light reflects on other planets, our conception of time will be distorted!
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Aug, 2003 09:06 am
akaMechsmith wrote:
Ican,
You misinterpret (O'Boy) my stance. I think that life itself skews probability theory.

What WE both suspect is that there hasn't been enough time for things to be as they are.



I find it curious that natural selection has behaved in a consistently inverse manner upon the occurrence of environmental disasters (e.g., large fluctuations in the sun's radiation, bolide impacts, and volcanic eruptions or explosions).

The consequence of such disasters is generally destruction of the more complex intelligent species and survival of the least complex least intelligent species. Perhaps our mental equipment provides us with the potential to survive the next environmental disaster and reverse that trend.

The living organisms found least diverse in species are those found via deep well drilling to exist deep in the earth near superheated water and/or other fluids. It is alleged that these are the dumbest and the most likely survivors of environmental disasters.

Each restart of evolution after such a disaster has generally resulted in the evolution of more intelligent life in less time than it took in previous cycles to evolve the less intelligent life.

So how is life itself a sufficient additional influence on top of undirected chance and natural selection to account for probable evolutionary outcomes?
0 Replies
 
BoGoWo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Aug, 2003 06:40 pm
ican711nm wrote:
akaMechsmith wrote:
Ican,
So how is life itself a sufficient additional influence on top of undirected chance and natural selection to account for probable evolutionary outcomes?


It isn't; evolution happens, and apart from extreme events nothing interferes with its function; but it is subject to 'chance'; so sometimes it goes faster, sometimes it goes sloer, and sometimes it doesn't go faster or slower.

A pretty simple concept, not requiring a great deal of 'investigation', 'theory', and (particularly) 'invention', to explain.
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Aug, 2003 09:22 pm
Red and CI,
However the temperatures surrounding a "ball of gas" are partly dependent on "units of energies" per fixed period of--- you guessed it--time.

BoGoWo, But they are not the same unless the average mass density of space is the same.

CI ( your next post 9:24),

No, It seems to depend on the density of space including the star or other galaxies.

On a very small scale this gets even more interesting.
A Gamma particle is a very energetic (high frequency-low volume) particle. QM people call them all particles. Saves having to argue whether it's a wave or a particle.
Its life on Earth is measured in milliseconds. Yet this particle travels hundreds of years through space to get here.
Because it is so energetic it travels so close to the "speed of light (or time) that less than a millisecond of time elapses for it. Thats why we can still observe them. Your going to have to check with Al Einstein to get it any clearer than that. Thats the General relativity part Confused .

Ican and Bogowo
Natural extinctions would remove competition and open up new ecological niches to exploit for the surviviors. The skills required to survive in an unchanging environment may be different than the ones required to exploit a new one. When the dinosaurs were forced to become birds the mammals had a whole world laid out as a platter. They already were warm blooded, even if they only made it to a rat sized omnivore under the reign of the dinosaurs. They also may have had a bit to do with the loss of the greater dinosaurs. (ever see rats in a dump).
Imagine them in a dinosaur nesting area Exclamation

If we manage to nuke mammals off this planet then the next contestants for the stars from Earth will likley be cockroaches. They are reputed to have a tolerance for radiation about 750 times humans. Note that cockroaches are a very old species. Their genome seems to be more resistant to externally induced changes than ours. The Opossum also seems unusually stable.
Anybody care to guess what gods will be involved in the Fourth World War, some 10 to thirty million years after the Third. Sad
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Aug, 2003 09:48 pm
BoGoWo, I think that you mixed up mine and Icans comments.
Although I am well flattered I'll answer Ican.

The more diverse species one has survive an ecological disaster the more quickly the niche could be filled.
If I threw one deck of cards on a table what are the odds of showing a royal flush?
If I threw ten million decks of cards on the table what are the odds that ONE of them would show a royal flush?

That also is one of my best arguements versus the "Cosmic Intelligence Theory".
When the Earth was young there were very few species of self replicating molecules. As time went on evolution provided many more. Any mass extinction of "higher (larger) animals" will necessarily provide an ecological niche for a wider and wider assortment of genetic material. And nothing succeeds like success. If mammals are forced off this planet I suspect the insects will have a field day exploiting the bounty we leave them. Kind of like the inheritances we discussed on another thread Very Happy
0 Replies
 
akaMechsmith
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Aug, 2003 10:02 pm
Bogowo Re, getting closer together.

Yes, you've said it nicely. Selection of the chances. Or selections of the results of chances. Got a word for it? Natural Selection IMO is too often used on a larger scale but perhaps it'll have to do.

Ican, Do you you concur Question

A good day, An idea has been successfully transmitted!

Best, Mech
0 Replies
 
BoGoWo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Aug, 2003 07:51 am
akaMechsmith wrote:
Bogowo Re, getting closer together.

A good day, An idea has been successfully transmitted!

Best, Mech


scarey thought ,eh

but, agreed! (funny word that {a'greed'}, makes you feel you are doing something evil!) Twisted Evil Laughing
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Aug, 2003 10:56 am
BoGoWo wrote:
... evolution happens, and apart from extreme events nothing interferes with its function; but it is subject to 'chance'; so sometimes it goes faster, sometimes it goes sloer, and sometimes it doesn't go faster or slower.

A pretty simple concept, not requiring a great deal of 'investigation', 'theory', and (particularly) 'invention', to explain.

Laughing

It's more like a simplistic concept providing zero information regarding HOW IT HAPPENS.

Shocked Wow, a scientific breakthrough to enhance our understanding:
stuff happens! Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Aug, 2003 11:11 am
akaMechsmith wrote:


Natural extinctions would remove competition and open up new ecological niches to exploit for the surviviors. The skills required to survive in an unchanging environment may be different than the ones required to exploit a new one. When the dinosaurs were forced to become birds the mammals had a whole world laid out as a platter. They already were warm blooded, even if they only made it to a rat sized omnivore under the reign of the dinosaurs. They also may have had a bit to do with the loss of the greater dinosaurs. (ever see rats in a dump).
Imagine them in a dinosaur nesting area Exclamation


There's a problem here. The organisms that evolved after the dinosaurs kicked the bucket, evolved from the same basic organism stuff that survived after the previous crash. As for niches opening up, those same niches were just as open after the previous crash. Why dinosaurs one epoch, and humans another?

akaMechsmith wrote:
If we manage to nuke mammals off this planet then the next contestants for the stars from Earth will likley be cockroaches. They are reputed to have a tolerance for radiation about 750 times humans. Note that cockroaches are a very old species. Their genome seems to be more resistant to externally induced changes than ours.


I think some of those buggers may have survived after other mass species terminations. Maybe all more advanced species (including us) descended from cockroaches. Maybe cockroaches constitute that intelligence I hypothesize influenced evolution of us. Hmmmm. Confused Flawed little buggers, ain't they? Laughing


akaMechsmith wrote:
Anybody care to guess what gods will be involved in the Fourth World War, some 10 to thirty million years after the Third. Sad


OOU Laughing
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Aug, 2003 11:19 am
akaMechsmith wrote:


Yes, you've said it nicely. Selection of the chances. Or selections of the results of chances. Got a word for it? Natural Selection IMO is too often used on a larger scale but perhaps it'll have to do.

Ican, Do you you concur Question


Yeah, call it ahhhh ........................ d i r e c t e d c h a n c e Shocked

Yeah, call it directedchance :wink:
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 01/10/2025 at 04:04:28