Re: Sense Within Evolutiomary Theory



"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> >
> [snip some examples, and John's explanations]
> >> JM:-
> >> RELATIVELY OPPOSED EMPIRICAL proposition

> > JE:-
> > Means exactly what it says. Please refer to any dictionary.
> > It appears to me you would prefer not to know the difference between
> > contesting absolute propositions and contesting relative propositions.
>
> You have just illustrated the problem. If I used a dictionary to try to
> figure out what "relatively opposed empirical propositions" are, I would
> work under the assumption that 'relatively' modifies 'opposed'.

JE:-
Two opposing and therefore different propositions can be *EITHER* relatively
opposed *OR* absolutely opposed to each other. Only if they are absolutely
opposing are they actually contradictory and not contrary.

Imagine that fitness is just a street that you can walk down. On one side of
the street you are allowed to walk north but on the other you must walk
south. The concepts "street" and "no street" are absolutely opposed so they
contradict each other. However, walking towards the south on left hand side
of the street instead north of the right hand side are only relatively
opposed so they are just contrary and not contradictory. These two sides of
the street represent a relative loss and a relative gain. Quite clearly you
cannot have both "a street" and "no street" or be walking along both sides
of the street at the same time. However, to be able to walk down either side
of the street you always firstly have to have a street to walk down. This is
why the total prohibition of all contradictions is so very basic to any
reasoning process. In Hamilton's case rb and c are only contrary and not
contradictory because they are relatively opposed and not absolutely
opposed, i.e. they simply represent opposite sides of the same street. For
the rule to even be able to distinguish between OFA and OFS as opposite
sides of a fitness street a missing absolute proposition is required which
is just the street itself. Only it can provide a frame of reference for the
sides of the street. You cannot know which side of the street you are
walking along unless you firstly define a street as your most essential
frame of reference. In Hamilton's case the missing street is TDF street. If
you are walking down the selfish (OFS) of this street and your TDF fitness
increases only because somebody else's TDF decreases then they must have
been walking on the opposite side. As in Hamilton's Rule, this does not have
to a zero sum association. However, because TDF is a maximand this
association is not allowed (is not selectable) so OFM must replace OFA
within Darwinism or the theory stands refuted, i.e. the street is proven not
to even exist. When using OFM you are NOT walking down both sides of the
street at once you are only walking down the OFS side of the street but with
at least one other. This does not mean that you must be walking at exactly
the same pace, i.e. the TDF gains that are mutually produced so they are
only available on the OFS side of the street do not have to be equal gains.
Mutualised gains on the OFS side of the street only means you must help each
other to mutually decrease TDF so only human idiots (they are commonplace)
and not old mother nature every walk down it with another.

The OFA side of the street is entirely unstable compared to the OFS side. If
anybody is tempted to walk down it on their own for more than just a short
period then the whole street may start to disintegrate from under their very
feet (you move towards extinction). This is because the TDF of the exploited
must become reduced so the expanding populations of the exploiters just end
up working harder and harder to find less and less to exploit. This may be
because of OFS exploitation OR OFA donations which is just the exploitation
of the exploited by themselves. Either must reduce the TDF of the exploited.
As the populations of the exploited become less and less the opportunity to
form stable mutualised associations instead of just unstable non mutualised
association becomes increasingly reduced. This is why, at all times, OFM
competes and wins against single acts (non mutualised acts) of OFS or any
acts of OFA (as either donations by the exploited or stealing from them).

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@xxxxxxxxxx

>snip<



.