Re: Genealogical Momentum

From: John Edser (edser_at_tpg.com.au)
Date: 03/01/05 

Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 23:13:23 -0500 (EST)

Guy Hoelzer <hoelzer@unr.edu>
> >>>> JF:-
> >>>> As you may realize from the past discussions here, the
> >>>> basic question between McGinn and everyone else is whether
> >>>> Hamilton's formula for kin selection is wrong.

> >>> JE:-
> >>> I suggest Felsenstein only speak for himself. I for one
> >>> have never stated "Hamilton's formula for kin selection
> >>> is wrong". I have agreed that the rule is logically valid
> >>> but I have argued it remains rationally invalid. Why
> >>> can't a Professor of Evolutionary distinguish between
> >>> them? Does he not understand the difference or is
> >>> he just evading making the distinction?

> >> GH:-
> >> These questions presuppose that JE's semantic distinction between
the
> >> words "rational" and "logical" ought to be shared by others.

> > JE:-
> > Science (or anything else) cannot exist if there is no
> > difference between logic and reason. A rational proposition
> > has to be logically valid but not all logically valid
> > propositions must also be rational. The most obvious
> > example is time. It is logically valid to reverse
> > time within a mathematical calculation but it is not
> > rationally valid to do so. Mathematics can provide the
> > logic for a perpetual motion machine but reason cannot,
> > etc etc.

> GH:-
> I disagree with this analysis. The reversibility of time in
mathematical
> models is almost always an assumption, rather than a prediction or
> conclusion.

JE:-
But this was MY point. An assumption
cannot be supplied except by reason.
Assumptions are inductive (guesses).
Many different assumptions have to
be thought up and then compared to
each other and nature. Machines cannot
make these inductive guesses.
This is why AI fails IMHO. All logic
can do is connect assumptions it
cannot create any. In the same way
this is all mathematics can do.
Either an assumption follows
logically or it does not.

Mathematical logic can service both
an assumption and its absolute reverse,
i.e. thesis and anti thesis. If both
thesis and anti thesis are valid
then very obviously, "anything goes".
Rational viability restricts logical
viability to just the thesis and
not its reverse. Each thesis is made
to compete without bias in the sciences
where any rational proposition always
has to locally correct. Also
it must exclude its anti thesis as a
valid part of its thesis and be testable
against nature. Minimally, testing means
verification or non verification but
in total you must add refutation to
that list. Since you delete refutation
this means that whatever you propose must
at the very least be verified in nature
for it to be a _rational_ proposition
of the sciences. In turn this requires
the basis of what is proposed to be
empirical. Time reversal has never
been verified yet it remains a logical
possibility. Using you own argument I
conclude that you have to agree
that the proposition of time reversal
is logically valid but not rationally
valid within the sciences.
 

> GH:-
> Assumptions need not have a logical (=rational) basis, as I
> presume you are aware, being a student of Popper.

JE:-
I have never read anything by Popper
that suggests a valid argument can be
illogical. Your assumption that logic
and reason are just synonyms remains in
serious error.

> GH:-
> A possible exception
> where the reversibility of time is a prediction underpinned by logical
(in
> this case mathematical) analysis might be within the framework of
> Einstein's
> general theory of relativity. However, even if this is such an
exception
> (I'm no expert here), this prediction would follow from other
assumptions,
> which themselves have little if any logical foundation. It may yet
turn
> out
> that time is reversible (some physicists maintain this position), but
I
> doubt it. I think you are generally incorrect in claiming that time
> reversibility in mathematical models, especially evolutionary models,
have
> any logical basis.

JE:-
The logic of any mathematical expression
employing t for time can be defined negative
just by altering the sign. Such a logic is
valid but remains rationally invalid even
if you delete refutation (as you do).

> > JE:-
> > If time could be reversed almost every problem
> > that life has to solve can be removed. Nobody accepts
> > time reversal "solutions" because they are only irrationally
> > based. Until time reversal is empirically documented
> > it is pointlessly irrational proposing time reversal
> > solutions for any problem within the sciences even if
> > they are absolutely mathematically possible. Only
> > different _rational_ propositions can contest each other
> > to provide solutions. The motor is logic but reason
> > drives the car. It is a point of logical irreversibility
> > that turns logic into reason. A mathematical expression
> > remains entirely reversible unless a constant term is
> > included within it denoting the event as testable
> > and independent.

> JE:-
> I guess I am just thick. I have been reading this argument by you for
> many
> years, and it still makes no sense to me. How would the inclusion of a
> constant make any difference in the reversibility property of an
equation?

JE:-
I consider bias to be your main problem.
I offer this observation without malice.

Only a constant can set an absolute limit. If the
limit is empirically exceeded then the constant
stands refuted. This could also be tested
by just the variables logically connected to
the constant. If a combination of variables
can only resolve via the destruction of the
constant term then the constant stands
refuted via just this set of variables if ever
they become empirical.

> GH:-
> BTW, if you want an example of equations that are not reversible take
a
> look
> at reaction diffusion equations, which I think were originally created
by
> Alan Turing. You can also have a look at the equations Prigogine used
to
> describe open dissipative systems.

JE:-
I have previously argued that mass within
Newtonian Mechanics remains a local constant because
mass cannot be composed of anything else but mass
because mass is an absolute assumption, i.e. an
inductive guess by Newton. Thus, you add or subtract
mass you must create independent events.

Rationally valid mathematics refer explicitly
or just implicitly to a constant term.
My point is any scientifically valid equation
must contain such a constant term explicitly
or implicitly. It does not have to be a
universal constant. However,
it is much easier to see that any mathematical
expression remains arbitrary when a universal
constant is assumed to be just a variable
e.g. E=Mc^2 . If c becomes a variable
the expression still makes logical sense but
it does not make any rational sense. Nobody
could claim that E=Mc^2 where c becomes
a variable (like everything else in the expression)
allows it to remain rational so such an expression
can also be regarded as a proposition of science.
 

> > JE:-
> > The mathematics of Hamilton's Rule requires a rationale
> > of cause and effect. In the sciences this rationale
> > has to be testable. Whenever Felsenstein is asked for
> > one he only provides the mathematical logic. He fails to
> > understand that Hamilton's mathematics reverses cause and
> > effect within evolutionary theory. When asked about this he
> > replies that he will never discuss cause and effect within
> > the sciences. I took him to task about this irrational
> > stance but he very violently objected. I wonder why? I put
> > it to sbe readers that it remains absurd to reverse cause
> > and effect within the sciences. In effect Felsenstein is
> > attempting to replace testable and contesting reasoned
> > arguments with just the one dictated logic.
> > As far as Felsenstein is concerned if the logic is correct
> > then that's it, no more needs to be said. If he consulted
> > Godel one of the greatest mathematicians, he would
> > learn that a LOT more needs to be said! Mathematics is
> > not self consistent. It requires propositions
> > that are NOT of mathematics.
> >...snip<
> > If no difference exists between logic and reason then
> > no difference exists between mathematics and reason
> > so "anything goes" as long as it is mathematically
> > possible.

> GH:-
> Whether you are right or wrong about this, it is still incumbent on
you to
> make the meaning contained in your arguments clear.

JE:-
I think I have made my meaning very
clear. Logic can be reversed but reason cannot be
where a critical point of irreversibility may remain
hidden within most reasoned arguments including
mathematically based arguments.

> > JE:-
> > If it is logically possible to build a modern
> > battleship out of dried cockroaches then this solution
> > is just as rational as building one out of metal. No
> > comparisons of price, durability etc even needs
> > to be considered because the only criterion is that
> > it is possible mathematically. Since time can be
> > mathematically reversed then it is just as rational to
> > kill somebody as it is to help them because logic is
> > the same as reason. IOW it is just absurd to argue
> > that logic is the same as reason.

> GH:-
> And if reason is left unconstrained by logic, then it seems rather
useless
> to me.

JE:-
I have never argued that reason
is "unconstrained by logic".
I clearly stated that any proposition
has to be logical to be reasonable but
I also clearly stated that not all
logical propositions have to be
reasonable. I can't understand your
challenge to the proposition that
logical validity is not the same as
rational validity.

I charge that Felsenstein's mathematics
remains logically valid but rationally
invalid because it does not propose
how Hamilton's allele can cross TWO
INDEPENDENT LEVELS of selection. All
he does is assume his gene has crossed
them both as a "fait accompli". Until
he or somebody else here supplies this
missing rationale I will continue to
argue that Felsenstein et al have misused
Hamilton's over simplified model.

My Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser@tpg.com.au

Quantcast