Oh and . . .
A) there’s more going on during evolution than simply natural selection.
B) just because you can describe with math doesn’t make it math.
1 Like
[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:161, topic:10237”]
A) there’s more going on during evolution than simply natural selection.
I don’t think so.
OK, the universe performs a near infinite number of physical and metaphysical experiments … EVERY SECOND!
By the law of probability, some of these experiment lead to an improved adaption that gives the lucky one an better chance of coping with the environment and greater opportunity to breed and procreate, thereby "increasing the common gene-pool " with
the better adapted mutant strain.
B) just because you can describe with math doesn’t make it math.
Ah, but is that a better argument than saying “just because you can describe with math makes it mathematical in essence. It’s axiomatic.”
And then a comet crashes in at the right time and place and totally reshuffles the cards.
Of course, you could make your definition as expansive as you want, and include stray comets and other examples of “punctuated equilibrium” as another form of natural selection and there’d be no arguing.
I think it keeps us more honest.
Or we can embrace a new debate is it axiomatic, or is it a tautology ?
Are we humans or are we automatons ?
1 Like
Or, just what the heck did mathematical in essence mean?
The idea that nature is mathematical in essence is a notion that primarily physicists entertain. They mistake intelligence for knowledge and philosophers, that have actual knowledge of the philosophical problems involved, know better. The idea that nature is mathematical in essence, and that we have discovered this fundamental essence, is both hubris and usually utterly devoid of any philosophical sophistication.
1 Like
How about we are humans in an automatic world?
AFAIK, natural selection includes every possible kind of mutation or change in environment. Natural selection is a probabilistic function. Out of a thousand changes, 995 may be unaltered, 1 or 2 may be detrimental, and 1 or 2 may be beneficial and after mating make their way into the gene pool.
A couple of misconceptions to consider:
MISCONCEPTION: Humans are not currently evolving.
CORRECTION: Humans are now able to modify our environments with technology.
MISCONCEPTION: Because evolution is slow, humans cannot influence it.
CORRECTION: As described in the misconception about evolutionary rates above, evolution sometimes occurs quickly. And since humans often cause major changes in the environment, we are frequently the instigators of evolution in other organisms.
1 Like
Write here’s a concept for you.
Okay reality is math, if you insist.
What you are missing though, is that reality is so much more.
Especially when viewed from our human’s perspective.
That depends on your POV, no?
We have Relativity for that perspective.
Quantum is the Universe’s perspective.
Now you are giving the Universe its own perspective?
A bit of cognitive tunneling happening here?
You are back in the theater of philosophy and theology,
not science which is about the observable universe.
====================
Oh, and when I was wrote
I was thinking in relation to other creatures that inhabit our Earth’s biosphere, and how they perceive the world and us.
That’s the thing I can’t figure out. He keeps doing that. He insists the universe has no feelings, which we agree, and knows it, but he says it like we don’t. Then he says the universe has a perspective.
I am using these terms in the context that science calls everything that interacts with something else is an “observer”. It does not imply a brained animal.
The universe does not have a perspective other than self-forming mathematical patterns.
The second definition of “perspective” is, “a particular attitude toward or way of regarding something; a point of view.”
The universe doesn’t have an attitude. There’s no context that can make that fit what you’re saying. The other two sentences above aren’t well formed either and this makes it worse.
It’s like when I start to say, “at the beginning of the universe”, I stop and reword that because time as we know it didn’t exist in the thing I’m referencing. The words to describe it aren’t in our language and we don’t know exactly what happened or what came before. And there, “before” doesn’t fit. So I don’t use those words loosely. If I did, people wouldn’t know what I meant. Like I don’t know what you mean.
[quote=“lausten, post:172, topic:10237”]
The second definition of “perspective” is, “a particular attitude toward or way of regarding something; a point of view.”
Yes, it is called relativity.
The universe doesn’t have an attitude. There’s no context that can make that fit what you’re saying. The other two sentences above aren’t well formed either and this makes it worse.
I used the term attitude in this context.
Attitude Determination
The attitude of an object is formally identified by the relative orientation between a frame of coordinates attached to the object and a reference frame (cf. Figure 1). The orientation is described through a set of real-valued variables known as attitude parameters…
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-02370-0_2-
Attitude of Beds
Attitude refers to the three dimensional orientation or positioning of a given
geological feature, such as a bed, a joint, a fold, etc.
STRUCTURAL GEOLOGY AND GEOPHYSICAL METHOD
Strike. When a bedding plane (or a joint plane, or a fault plane) is cut by a horizontal plane, a line of intersection will be obtained at the surface. This direction is known as the strike, or the direction of the strike, or the line of the strike. Strike direction can obviously be represented as N 300 E or as S 300 W.
Dip. The dip direction is the direction along which the inclination of the bedding plane occurs. The dip amount is the angle of inclination between the bedding plane and a horizontal plane. . For example the beds are inclined at 300 to the horizontal, and their dip may be expressed as S 600 E ; when the strike direction is N 300 E or S.
https://www.rcet.org.in/uploads/files/LectureNotes/civil/S3/Engineering%20Geology/Unit%204.pdf
This may have been a little too obtuse. I just wanted to use the word “attitude” without any human psychological reference.
I don’t know what was before the beginning. I never speculate about something that might have been before time began. I suspect it was very simple and only for a single instant, at which time did begin.
If there was no time, then any single instant of physical expression is the beginning.
Not really. Relativity is the absence of standards, or it’s the theory. I think you mean “relative to”, although that’s not entirely clear either.
But you didn’t use the word “attitude”. It was in the definition of “perspective”. So, when I tried to show how the use of that word was confusing, you took a word from what I supplied and said you were using it. Really, this is no longer a conversation or dialog of any kind. I’m just showing you how your words don’t make sense over and over. I would prefer you just start your own threads and stay out of the ones I start for now. Unless you have something other than “the perspective of the universe”, or “math is the essence of the universe”.
Einstein’s General Relativity addresses the question of “perspective” and “attitude” (coordinate)
Do you have a reference?
Fasten your seatbelt.
Relativity versus quantum mechanics: the battle for the universe
It is the biggest of problems, it is the smallest of problems. At present physicists have two separate rulebooks explaining how nature works.
There is general relativity, which beautifully accounts for gravity and all of the things it dominates: orbiting planets, colliding galaxies, the dynamics of the expanding universe as a whole. That’s big.
And that is what I am talking about. Geometrics, Spacetime Coordinates, Patterns
Then there is quantum mechanics, which handles the other three forces – electromagnetism and the two nuclear forces. Quantum theory is extremely adept at describing what happens when a uranium atom decays, or when individual particles of light hit a solar cell. That’s small.
Now for the problem: relativity and quantum mechanics are fundamentally different theories that have different formulations. It is not just a matter of scientific terminology; it is a clash of genuinely incompatible descriptions of reality.
Relativity versus quantum mechanics: the battle for the universe | Physics | The Guardian
Not a reference for what you said
[quote=“write4u, post:177, topic:10237, full:true”]
Fasten your seatbelt.
Relativity versus quantum mechanics: the battle for the universe
It is the biggest of problems, it is the smallest of problems. At present physicists have two separate rulebooks explaining how nature works.
There is general relativity, which beautifully accounts for gravity and all of the things it dominates: orbiting planets, colliding galaxies, the dynamics of the expanding universe as a whole. That’s big.
And that is what I am talking about. Geometrics, Spacetime Coordinates, Patterns
I know there are competing theories, but neither one addresses how we came to be able to express those theories while most of the rest of the universe doesn’t. We can’t have a conversation with a tree about how gravity feels.