The problem of Self-Referential systems

[QuarkHead]

IMO, both "numbers" and "words" are human symbolic representations of natural values.

Take the human symbols away and the "natural value" remains.

Write4U, once again you demonstrate a total lack of understanding of science.
If "IMO" denotes your opinion, remember that science does NOT deal care about opinions - it is an empirical discipline i.e. based on observation and measurement (they are not really different!) and any calculation that may be required to define them.

Again, science is empirical -reality is that which we can observe, measure or calculate therefrom. Science rejects the Kantian view that there is a "real" world and a phenomenological world which may not coincide.

Unless you have expressed yourself poorly, you seem to take Kant's position. Fair enough, but it's not science.

 

[Write4U]

Write4U, once again you demonstrate a total lack of understanding of science.

And you have a total understanding of science? I'm getting sick of this hubris. Tone it down a little, will you?

If "IMO" denotes your opinion, remember that science does NOT deal care about opinions - it is an empirical discipline i.e. based on observation and measurement (they are not really different!) and any calculation that may be required to define them.

If my opinion is based on empirical science it is as valid as your opinion based on empirical science.

I agree with Max Tegmark that underneath reality lies a mathematical structure, which we have been able to symbolize with human mathematics.

Again, science is empirical -reality is that which we can observe, measure or calculate therefrom. Science rejects the Kantian view that there is a "real" world and a phenomenological world which may not coincide.

And what is it that science uses to unlock the mysteries of the Universe? Mathematics. IMO, that proves an empirical truth that Reality is a mathematical construct.

Unless you have expressed yourself poorly, you seem to take Kant's position. Fair enough, but it's not science.

And "IYO" (in your opinion) I take Kant's position? Do you have empirical proof of that? Seems to me that you just engaged in non-science.

Note, I am being nice about this.

 

[phyti]

Write4U;

Maybe you haven't noticed, the animal species exhibit programmed behavior, with a limited ability to adapt to their environment. Some migrate large distances without maps or GPS. All repeat cycles of behavior. The bee communicates via dances, salmon return to their spawning ground via sense of smell, etc. Most of their behavior is hardwired. We may interpret their behavior in terms of physical processes, like chemistry according to our own knowledge, but the bees behavior is instinctive. They don't plan, calculate, then act.
The world of plants, with their geometric patterns, that you have mentioned, results from genetic code the same method as for life forms.
My question would be, what is the source of the programs.

It can't be mindless inanimate matter.

If you had extra money to invest, do you get advice from a stone, a tree, your neighbor's pet, or a person with financial experience?

 

[phyti]

Write4U;

Evolution by Natural Selection.

What is doing the selection?

 

[Write4U]

Maybe you haven't noticed, the animal species exhibit programmed behavior, with a limited ability to adapt to their environment. Some migrate large distances without maps or GPS. All repeat cycles of behavior.

Oh you are wrong here. Migrating birds do have GPS, they can read and follow the earth's magnetic fields that present a map by which they navigate. Bats and whales have sonar. Does an Octopus act without thought?

The bee communicates via dances, salmon return to their spawning ground via sense of smell, etc. Most of their behavior is hardwired. We may interpret their behavior in terms of physical processes, like chemistry according to our own knowledge, but the bees behavior is instinctive. They don't plan, calculate, then act.

Oh yes hive insects do plan and make decisions by consensus. This has been demonstrated when two scouts are indicating two different locations where food is abundant and a new hive may be established. Because the hive can not split up in different directions, in the end, the swarming hive decides to select one location which is most advantageous to settlement.

Is this not what happens to humans? Our behavior is mostly evolved hardwired instinct, is it not? So where is the distinction? Awareness already begins with chemical quorum sensing in bacteria and all evolved living things share the same evolutionary time frame. There is an empirically proven hierarchy of levels of conscious awareness. There is no clear demarcation. The same as the abiogenesis, the hierarchy of evolving biological life from pure chemistry.

You gonna have to expand your horizons. We are not unique, we are uniquely smart, that's all.

My question would be, what is the source of the programs.

Evolution by way of natural selection, just like all expressed patterns in nature, from atoms to galaxies, from bacteria to humans. There is no magic sauce!

 

[Beaconator]

Which dictionary? My question is your opportunity to elaborate, explain in more detail, that's what I'm asking you to do, explain in more detail.

Go read one…

 

[Beaconator]

Write4U;


What is doing the selection?

Animals

 

[Beaconator]

Animals

Oh wait since COVID hit its still animals. Or Biden

 

[Write4U]

Oh wait since COVID hit its still animals. Or Biden

Lol, every natural event that ends a chronological evolutionary process, i.e. no opportunity to continue or procreate, is a natural selection event.
It is a stochastic process, where long term odds favor those natural systems that are best adapted to their environment.

Darwinian Evolution specifically addresses survival long enough to procreate, which for some species is quite a challenge. The Mayfly only survives by the sheer numbers. Their time alotted for mating may be just a few hours before they die.

Top 10 Weird Insect Mating Rituals

Mayflies
By Christopher ShayMonday, Aug. 16, 2010

Thomas Ames Jr. / Visuals Unlimited / Corbis

Aristotle described a "peculiar bloodless animal" that emerged from near the Black Sea and perished just a day later. He named the creature the ephemeron, meaning "one-day living." Today we have another name for this insect: the mayfly. The great philosopher wasn't quite correct in saying it has a 24-hour existence, but he was close. Though mayfly youths can live from several months to several years in streams or decaying matter, their adult lives are indeed short, lasting as little as three hours for some species.

As mature adults, they have only one goal — to reproduce — and with only a few hours, there's no time for romance. Mayfly sex is a forced act, with multiple males chasing a single female, and mayfly males waiting on top of young females, ready to take advantage of the moment they're mature enough to mate. These insect orgies can be so large, they can be detected by Doppler radar and can even stop traffic.

.....NEXT: Honeybees

http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2010939_2010938_2010936,00.html#

 

[phyti]

Write4U;

Oh you are wrong here. Migrating birds do have GPS, they can read and follow the earth's magnetic fields that present a map by whichthey navigate. Bats and whales have sonar. Does an Octopus act without thought?

They may navigate by magnetic sensory input in a system unique to them, but also use landmarks, just as land animals do.
Humans have copied ideas from natural behavior like those you mentioned.
I am not implying that animal life forms don't think or have mental processes, knowing they have brains. There has to be a brain-muscle connection./nervous system. Bees don't form a committee to determine the most suitable form of construction in the hive is the hexagon. All bees around the world are born with that concept or copy it from adult bees. Their primary actions are programmed resulting in repetitive behavior.
Typically, produce a new generation, pass on survival skills by example, migrate when needed, live out their life span and die. All animals survive using distinctive, predictable patterns of behavior, which on more detailed study, are more complex (as usual) than the simple initial explanations.

Is this not what happens to humans? Our behavior is mostly evolved hardwired instinct, is it not? So where is the distinction? Awareness already begins with chemical quorum sensing in bacteria and all evolved living things share the same evolutionary time frame.

No, it us not. Humans have free will, that allows them to deviate from any biologically driven function. You can avoid eating to protest an unjust cause, stay awake all night for any reason, put yourself in danger to rescue another person or animal.
An animal; would search for food until satisfied, be up at night if stalking prey, and flee from danger.
Humans plan for the future; meetings, vacation, insurance, retirement, etc. Not so with animals.
Humans have a system of justice, holding people accountable for their actions. Not so with animals.
The behavior of animals is primarily influenced by their programming and the environment.

We are not unique, we are uniquely smart, that's all.

No, we are uniquely ignorant! Darwin wrote about his inability to observe adaptation to the environment, and the general population who knew far less, thought he was an expert. You're wasting your time trying to sell me this stuff.

Evolution by way of natural selection, just like all expressed patterns in nature, from atoms to galaxies, from bacteria to humans. There is no magic sauce!

"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's
argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to
preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data
as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The
history of most fossil species includes tow features particularly inconsistent
with gradualism.
Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on
earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they
disappear; morphological change usually limited and directionless.
In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.
(Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself
whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." (Charles Darwin, The Life and
Letters of Charles Darwin, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)

 

[Write4U]

Write4U;
They may navigate by magnetic sensory input in a system unique to them, but also use landmarks, just as land animals do.

Yes, they are navigating the airways.

Humans have copied ideas from natural behavior like those you mentioned.

Humans have copied the methods used by other species, like flight.

I am not implying that animal life forms don't think or have mental processes, knowing they have brains. There has to be a brain-muscle connection./nervous system. Bees don't form a committee to determine the most suitable form of construction in the hive is the hexagon. All bees around the world are born with that concept or copy it from adult bees. Their primary actions are programmed resulting in repetitive behavior.

Natural selection of beneficial behavior.

Typically, produce a new generation, pass on survival skills by example, migrate when needed, live out their life span and die. All animals survive using distinctive, predictable patterns of behavior, which on more detailed study, are more complex (as usual) than the simple initial explanations.

I agree.

No, it us not. Humans have free will, that allows them to deviate from any biologically driven function. You can avoid eating to protest an unjust cause, stay awake all night for any reason, put yourself in danger to rescue another person or animal.

The question if humans have free will is wide open and you cannot make a blanket declaration one way or the other.

An animal; would search for food until satisfied, be up at night if stalking prey, and flee from danger.
Humans plan for the future; meetings, vacation, insurance, retirement, etc. Not so with animals.

Ravens don't plan for the future? Octopus doesn't plan for the future?Squirrels don't plan for the future? Beavers, building dams don't plan for the future? I beg to differ.

Humans have a system of justice, holding people accountable for their actions. Not so with animals. The behavior of animals is primarily influenced by their programming and the environment.

As long as you qualify that statement you're safe, but Apes, Crows and Ravens definitely have a system of justice and banish offenders from their society.

No, we are uniquely ignorant! Darwin wrote about his inability to observe adaptation to the environment, and the general population who knew far less, thought he was an expert. You're wasting your time trying to sell me this stuff.

We were uniquely ignorant until Darwin opened our eyes.

"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to
preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study.

What are you talking about? We use accelerated evolution by selective breeding of prize species of all kinds all the time.

The history of most fossil species includes tow features particularly inconsistent with gradualism.

I'm interested to know what those two are...

Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.

Of course they did, they went extinct. Once a species is extinct it doesn't evolve anymore.

In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed. (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

There it is: "irreducible complexity". That notion has been thoroughly debunked.

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." (Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)

Yes, that was 134 years ago and uttered by the man who discovered "evolution by natural selection".

He was a humble man, not given to bragging. He delayed publishing his work for several years before he was himself convinced and confident enough to share his world-shaking "discovery" with a hostile religious world.
He was a true scientist, following the scientific method both in theory and in practical pigeon breeding himself.

 

[phyti]

Write4U;

selective breeding

Modifying a species is not creating a different species.
Plants are grafted to get a variation of that plant.
You will never convince a cancer patient that genetic mutation is beneficial to their health.
The life forms in the sea, land, and air, are still surviving in their habitat.
There was no necessity to move from one environment to another to survive.

The bird doesn't need scales, gills, or fins.
The horse doesn't need feathers.
The fish doesn't need feathers or hooves.
The worm doesn't need any of those things.
They all are fit to survive, without modification.
By the time a bird of prey is ready to fly, it must have acute vision to survive.
That would apply to the first bird of prey, it can't wait for any form of additional development of its vision.
The reasons they don't survive are natural disasters, floods, drought, disease, and human intrusion.

It won't matter what I post, you are thoroughly indoctrinated into evolution.

"In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all new categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences." (Simpson, George Gaylord, The Major Features of Evolution, 1953, p. 360)

"The record certainly did not reveal gradual transformations of structure in the course of time. On the contrary, it showed that species generally remained constant throughout their history and were replaced quite suddenly by significantly different forms. New types or classes seemed to appear fully formed, with no sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type." (Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea, 1984, p. 187)

 

[Write4U]

Write4U; Selective breeding.

Modifying a species is not creating a different species.

If you modify it over long periods of time it does.

Plants are grafted to get a variation of that plant.

Yes, selective breeding

You will never convince a cancer patient that genetic mutation is beneficial to their health.

No, you are looking at this from the wrong POV. It is the nature of natural selection that some species go extinct in certain environments and make way for species that are adapted and cancer resistant, such as acquiring dark skin in tropical environments. People with dark skin are evolved to withstand cancer producing UV radiation of the sun.

The life forms in the sea, land, and air, are still surviving in their habitat.

Yes, natural selection has adapted them perfectly to their environment. Look at it over long periods of time and you will see that almost all species have specific adaptations to allow them best chance for survival.
That is how Darwin hit upon the idea to begin with. The different beaks of Finches who had different diets from the variety of fruits and nuts in their specific corner of the world.

Darwin's finches (also known as the Galápagos finches) are a group of about 18 species of passerine birds.[1][2][3][4] They are well known for their remarkable diversity in beak form and function.[5] They are often classified as the subfamily Geospizinae or tribe
Geospizini. They belong to the manager family and are not closely related to the true finches. The closest known relative of the Galápagos finches is the South American Tiaris obscurus.[6] They were first collected by Charles Darwin on the Galápagos Islands during the second voyage of the Beagle. Apart from the Cocos finch, which is from Cocos Island, the others are found only on the Galápagos Islands.

Seen here is adapted radiation of finch A. (Geospiza magnirostris) into three other species of finches found on the Galapagos Islands. Due to the absence of other species of birds, the finches adapted to new niches. The finches' beaks and bodies changed allowing them to eat certain types of foods such as nuts, fruits, and insects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_finches

There was no necessity to move from one environment to another to survive.

Right, some adapted to their specific environment (like Darwin's finches), others started migrating (snow geese, gnu, salmon).

The bird doesn't need scales, gills, or fins. The horse doesn't need feathers. The fish doesn't need feathers or hooves. The worm doesn't need any of those things.

Correct, they don't need those properties.

They all are fit to survive, without modification.

Their modification by natural selection was complete and generalized over the entire population, all selection gives the same adapted results and any change is only in gradual refinements, such as long-range eyesight in arial birds of prey.

By the time a bird of prey is ready to fly, it must have an acute vision to survive.

Arial birds came long after ground-dwelling birds. All birds are carnivorous and some do not require long-range vision. The ones that do, acquired their acute vision by natural selection, which allowed them to fly higher without losing the detail of the ground.

That would apply to the first bird of prey, it can't wait for any form of additional development of its vision.

A chicken is a bird of prey, a raven is a bird of prey, a stork is a bird of prey, and they all have keen eyesight for very small objects at short distances. You have seen them eat roadkill, no? OTOH, eagles have evolved keen eyesight for long-range observation of small detail.

The reasons they don't survive are natural disasters, floods, drought, disease, and human intrusion.

Yes, those are the tools of natural selection.

If you manage to survive all those dangers because you have an extraordinary ability that allows you to survive, you live to procreate and pass on those extraordinary skills.

This is why the insect is present in such incredible variety and abundance. They are practically indestructible and have survived since the very beginning through 5 Extinction events and inhabit every corner of the earth and constitute greater biomass than all other animals.

Insects also probably have the largest biomass of terrestrial animals. At any time, it is estimated that there are some 10 quintillion (10,000,000,000,000,000,000) individual insects alive.

https://www.si.edu/spotlight/buginfo/bugnos#

It won't matter what I post, you are thoroughly indoctrinated into evolution.

Hold on, I am taking the time to address every one of your concerns. I believe that you, as a reasonable person, may be able to see the logic in "evolution by natural selection" if exposed to the common-sense explanation of what "evolution by natural selection" means. I am not giving up hope on you yet.

"In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every palaeontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all new categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences." (Simpson, George Gaylord, The Major Features of Evolution, 1953, p. 360)

Of course, this guy is contradicting himself here; ("let's just forget about the existing evidence and make contrary assumptions for which there is no evidence").

It is because of the examples that we can conclude Darwin was on the right track. Not yet perfect, but on point. Any gaps in evolutionary changes depend on what you are looking for and what remains of the fossil record over a few billion years of exposure to natural physics.

"The record certainly did not reveal gradual transformations of structure in the course of time. On the contrary, it showed that species generally remained constant throughout their history and were replaced quite suddenly by significantly different forms. New types or classes seemed to appear fully formed, with no sign of an evolutionary trend by which they could have emerged from an earlier type." (Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea, 1984, p. 187)

On the contrary, if you look at long time spans, you will see that almost all species have undergone drastic changes, in the direction of the best adaptation to their environment. The species that showed little change over time, just prove that their adaptation was sufficient for all members to survive and produce adapted offspring and that natural selection favored all members equally.

 

[Write4U]

From the Big Bang to Broadway: How Things Evolve

Evolution has long been a lightning rod for anti-science rhetoric. Such attacks are usually reserved for discussions of Darwinian evolution by natural selection, but evolving systems also operate in many other contexts, including the formation of chemical elements in stars following the Big Bang, diversification of minerals on Earth-like planets, development of languages, and more.

Although each of these complex systems evolves through selective mechanisms, they fundamentally differ from each other. Comparisons point to general principles of emergent complexity, and underscore the power and plausibility of biological evolution

Part I: What is Evolution?

1. Change over time. 2. An increase in complexity (i.e., diversity, behavior, structure) 3. Congruency 4. Common descent 5. Darwinian evolution by natural selection.

https://hazen.carnegiescience.edu/sites/default/files/BigBangBroadway-CIW-18MAR10_red.pdf

Do yourself a real favor and read some of Robert Hazen's papers. His knowledge and expertise of explaining evolving systems is equal to Carl Sagan and will allow you to see things from a comprehensive scientific POV.

IMO, Evolution by Natural Selection is the ultimate example of self-referential Universal physics. It is a self-correcting system that stochastically moves in the direction of greater complexity and refinement.

 

[Write4U]

Their primary actions are programmed resulting in repetitive behavior.

The programmed result of evolved successful behavior.

The Hexagon is the most efficient mathematical pattern for maximum storage in a limited space. The hexagonal "honeycomb" is a result of natural selection of the greatest storage efficiency. There is no intent, just naturally evolving mathematics, which becomes programmed (hardwired) in the bee's behavior. It is evidence of natural selection at several different levels.

The regular hexagons of honeycombs might owe more to the laws of physics than to honeybees' engineering prowess. Credit: CORDELIA MOLLOY/SPL

The perfect hexagonal array of bees’ honeycombs, admired for millennia as an example of natural pattern formation, owes more to simple physical forces than to the skill of bees, according to a new study.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2013.13398

The spider's web is another outstanding example of evolved mathematical skills for very specific purposes.

Spider Web
A net-like structure built by spiders; made of silk threads from the spider’s spinneret glands

https://difference.guru/difference-between-a-spider-web-and-a-cobweb/

In a mathematical Universe, everything evolves via mathematical algorithms. The only mystery that remains is those mathematics we have not yet discovered.

 

[phyti]

Write4U;

It won't matter what I post, you are thoroughly indoctrinated into evolution.

Time is not a causal factor.

Enjoy your fantasy.

 

[Write4U]

Time is not a causal factor.

I never claimed that.

My claim is that time in and of itself does not exist at all but is a result of measurement of the duration of a chronology. Apparently, you don't read my posts or you don't stop to consider what I am saying.

From wiki;

Time is the continued sequence of existence and events that occur in an apparently irreversible succession from the past, through the present, into the future.[1][2][3] It is a component quantity of various measurements used to sequence events, to compare the duration of events or the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change of quantities in material reality or in the conscious experience.[4][5][6][7]

Time is often referred to as a fourth dimension, along with three spatial dimensions.[8]

I do not subscribe to that notion. Time does not exist independently, but emerges along with the measurable instantiation of a chronological set of events.

Time has long been an important subject of study in religion, philosophy, and science, but defining it in a manner applicable to all fields without circularity has consistently eluded scholars.[7][9] Nevertheless, diverse fields such as business, industry, sports, the sciences, and the performing arts all incorporate some notion of time into their respective measuring systems.[10][11][12]

....more
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

If you paid attention you would discover that nothing I say is from indoctrination, that is the domain of the religious.

My posits attempt to follow simple logic. There is no irreducible complexity. That is indoctrination by the religious.

 

[QuarkHead]

My claim is that time in and of itself does not exist at all but is a result of measurement of the duration of a chronology.

And what, pray, do the words "duration" and "chronology" imply other than a temporal metric? This classic circularity

My posits attempt to follow simple log

Then, judged by the above, your attempts fail

 

[Write4U]

And what, pray, do the words "duration" and "chronology" imply other than a temporal metric? This classic circularity

No it is not, time can only emerge going forward into the future, which is still a timeless void until we get there. The future has no chronology or duration.

Then, judged by the above, your attempts fail

Judged by the evidence it succeeds.

Time itself is immeasurable. You cannot measure time with time. It is the exact opposite of circularity.

And if you want to cite "spacetime" that only means the measurable part of the expanding "space". Spacetime has already been created and is measurable. It is the uncreated space that is timeless until we get thence.

 

[phyti]

Write4U;
indoctrination:
"cause to believe something: to teach somebody a belief, doctrine, or ideology thoroughly and systematically, especially with the goal of discouraging independent thought or the acceptance of other opinions"

"but defining it in a manner applicable to all fields without circularity has consistently eluded scholars"

So what's their problem?

'The Meaning of Relativity', Albert Einstein, 1956:
page 1.
"The experiences of an individual appear to us arranged in a series of events; in this series the single events which we remember appear to be ordered according to the criteria of "earlier" and "later", which cannot be analysed further. There exists, therefore, for the individual, an I-time, or subjective time."

If these 'scholars' would analyze how humans apply 'time', they would know.
It's a convention for ordering and recording events, using an arbitrarily defined clock event. Any consistent periodic process can define a um. Science wants to make it deep and mysterious.

If you paid attention you would discover that nothing I say is from indoctrination, that is the domain of the religious.

In today's world, science is a religion, a belief that it will solve all of humanity's problems.

"The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life's history not the artifact of a poor fossil record...The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change."
(Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution Columbia University Press, 1982, p. 59

Are all these people who question evolution because of lack of evidence, wrong?