Re: Issues: A Question Of Integrity (was: Issues)
- From: "John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 01:02:34 -0400 (EDT)
[This is a resend. The original was not posted]
> > JE:-
> > Jim, F=ma (where m>0) is NOT EMPIRICALLY the same event as -F=-ma
even
> > if it is mathematically equivalent. If you stipulate that F>0 (which
I
> > assume you meant to do otherwise the transformation you described is
> > just an empirical impossibility because it is absurd to suggest a
force
> > <0) ...
> John, you are incredibly stupid. Of course I don't stipulate that
F>0.
JE:-
Dear oh dear...
Jim, you appear to not be able to remember your own proposition. This
was:
a force from the sun acting on the Earth. As you well know only the
reverse can be represented when F<0. Therefore I can only retort that it
remains "incredibly stupid" of you not to have stipulated that F>0
simply because when F<0 you just end up contradicting your own
proposition.
Perhaps it would be prudent of me to remind you as to what is being
debated. I argued that when you multiply both sides of any mathematical
expression, even though both expressions remain mathematically
equivalent, they can never represent the same EMPIRICAL event. In fact I
argued that a cause and effect must become reversed. You disagreed.
Therefore I asked you to provide any mathematical expression other than
Hamilton's Rule that proved you were right and I was wrong. You provided
F=ma and the same equation multiplied by -1, -F= =-ma. As you can see it
is easily proven that equations F=ma and
-F=-ma do NOT represent the same empirical event no matter if F<0 or
F>0. Therefore your proposition that they are the same empirical event
stands refuted.
You appear to have chosen to evade the only answer that makes sense
because you just snipped the solution I provided. This was: when F>0
then -F caused by the deceleration -a within -F=-ma REDUCES the force of
the sun acting on the earth while +F within F=ma INCREASES it,
representing a RELATIVELY OPPOSED EMPIRICAL proposition. The increase or
decrease in acceleration represents the same logic as the opposing
movement of x resources within Hamilton's Rule compared to the
transformed rule.
>snip<
> (A social behavior with b<0 and c<0 is a social behavior with resource
> flows in the opposite direction from a social behavior with b>0 and
c>0).
JE:-
But the values b and c *CANNOT* be <0 (or be transferred) simply because
they represent reproductive events. How can you reproduce yourself less
than a zero number of times? All you can do within Hamilton's Rule is
transfer x resources either way where these resources limit reproductive
events. ALL the action within the rule is just the invisible transfer of
resources to or from the recipients. No other alternatives to limit the
number of reproductives by the actor or the recipients exist within
either rule. Against all reason you continue to argue that resources are
only ever transferred from the actor to the recipients when using rb>c
or -rb<-c but agree that -c must represent a fitness credit for the
actor. What you are attempting to argue is that nothing at all has
changed when you multiply both sides of Hamilton's Rule by -1. NAS
(amazingly) attempted to argue that nothing had changed because a
negative credit remained a credit and not a debit (ditto for a debit).
All he was attempting was an Enron type fraudulent accounting scheme to
underwrite the evolution of altruism within nature. NAS has never
replied to this accusation so reason forces reader's to conclude NAS has
no integrity. Also, nobody from the Neo Darwinian establishment will
answer so sbe reader's have every right to question their integrity.
The only change that multiplying the rule by -1 can provide is a
reversal of the transfer of x resources where these resources must
remain >0.
> You seem to be confused about the difference between multiplying the
> **law** by -1 (which changes nothing in the real world) and
multiplying
> the **values of the variables** by -1 (which represents a reversed
real-
> world
> situation).
JE:-
No confusion exists on my part. I have stated on more than just one
occasion that the transformed rule (-rb<-c) is the result of just a
basic mathematical process of multiplying both sides of Hamilton's Rule
(rb>c) by -1 (which cannot _mathematically_ change the rule) where this
remains the only possible way that the rule can be multiplied by -1.
I repeat: as a basic question of integrity this matter must be concluded
.... one way or the other...
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia
edser@xxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Human design and natural "design"
- Next by Date: Re: Maximum entropy principle
- Previous by thread: Re: Issues: A Question Of Integrity (was: Issues)
- Next by thread: Re: Issues: A Question Of Integrity (was: Issues)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
