Re: Article: Group selection, a theory whose time has come...again

On Dec 7, 4:32 pm, "John W Edser" <ed...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Lorentz" <drosen0...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote :

JE
Because total Darwinian
fitness (TDF) has never been identified, polycentric Neo Darwinism
cannot
even separate the individual from a group of individuals.
What's wrong with polycentrism in science?

JE:-
It can remove a critical constant frame of reference reducing a falsifiable
theory to just a non falsifiable model of the same theory.

I am a physicist. We
have long ago accepted Newtonian physics, which is a polycentric
theory.
Newton's theory of gravity was preceded by Kepler's Laws.

JE:-
Galileo was the first to argue that at least one DEFINED constant frame of
reference is absolutely required to make sense of anything. All we have at
our disposal are proposed variables and constants where both remain OUTSIDE
of propositions of mathematics (in line with what Gödel discovered).

I propose that any falsifiable theory must have a minimum of TWO critical
frames of reference which can only ever provide a mono centric view. These
frames are: whatever the defined limiting and controlling frames happen to
be within any theory. This can be proven and quite easily illustrated
within Zeno's Paradox which remains unsolved within mathematics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes

I proposed in sbe that just one solution of the paradox exists: simply
define the start and end of the race where the start provides the critical
limiting frame and the finish the critical controlling frame. All
measurements must be made relative to either constant frame and not relative
to just each variable. Allowing measurements between variables causes the
paradox. Constants and variables were not defined within the paradox because
mathematics alone cannot separate a constant from a variable.

The constant controlling frame of reference for Newtonian physics is: time
, which only ever proceeds forwards at the same constant rate everywhere
within the universe. The constant limiting frame: the total mass of the
universe remains constant (matter cannot be created or destroyed). Newtonian
theory only provides a mono centric theory wherein _independent_ parcels of
matter are referenced travelling in time such that any one parcel was and
remains, just the simple sum of the matter within it.

Now
there was a monocentric theory (the sun being the center). However,
physicists now see Kepler's Laws as a special case of Newton's Laws.

JE:-
Newton's theory was and remains, mono centric.
This is not true. Newton defined an absolute frame of reference,
sure. However, that frame of reference contains an infinite number of
equivalent spatial points. Any one of those spatial points can be
arbitrarily chosen as a center, by which I mean an origin of a
coordinate system where Newton's three laws of motion are still
valid.
As an example, both the Jupiter and the sun are accelerating in
that absolute frame of reference defined by Newton. The three laws of
motion will not strictly hold true on either Jupiter or on the sun.
The barycenter of Jupiter and sun system is accelerating much less
than either. However, any spatial point fixed with respect to the
barycenter has the same acceleration. Therefore, any point in the
universe is just as good as the barycenter if we define its motion as
fixed with respect to the barycenter.
There is no one spatial center in Newtonian physics, so I call it
polycentric. Other physicists call it acentric, which I observed
misleads a certain type of nonscientist. The technical term is
Galilean invariant, which means mud to almost everybody.
Perhaps we are using different definitions of centric. The way I
have always heard this suffix used, it means a spatial point which is
used as the origin of the coordinate system. There is no need for this
spatial point to be unique.


If it wasn't then it could
never have been tested to refutation.
Well, yes it could. In fact, if the physics wasn't polycentric it
couldn't be tested. For example, consider that famous NBS clock
experiment. While those three clocks were circling the world, the
center of the earth moved a large distance. If the physics was true at
only one point at one time, the three clocks couldn't have been
compared. The actual verification was subtle. The secret is that all
three clocks were accelerating. The NBS clock was accelerating more
than one of the clocks and less than the other. None of the three
clocks was in an "absolute" reference frame. A lot of people miss
that.

Einstein refuted the ONE controlling
frame of refernce that Newton defined, reducing the rate of time advancing
forward to be just a variable while elevating the velocity of light in a
vacuum (which was just a variable under Newton) to a new, surprising,
constant. IOW, a contradictory theory to Newton was empirically verified
simultaneously providing a refutation of Newtonian Mechanics. A dicentric
theory would have allowed a minimum of two controlling frame of refernce
such that if one stood refuted this could have easily been evaded by
referring to the other, allowing just about anything.
I don't think the word dicentric is being used properly here.
I suspect what you mean is that there are covariant properties and
contravariant properties. This roughly corresponds to the separation
between observer and system. I don't agree with you that such a
separation is really necessary for "falsifiable" science, but the
point is arguable. In any case, Einstein's physics and Newtonian
physics have wiggle room with respect to choosing a coordinate system.
An arbitrary description is not synonymous with ambiguous physics.
In Darwinian falsifiable mono centric evolutionary theory, the critical
controlling frame of reference is TDF (Total Darwinian Fitness). This has
never been identified so Darwinism has not been understood. TDF is
falsifiably defined as: the total number of strictly fertile forms
reproduced per parent per population. The limiting frame is very simply
represented by _populations_ defined as the simple sum of strictly all the
fertile forms defined to constitute one evolving population. In mono centric
Darwinism only fertile individuals are selected and just populations of them
can evolve (never the reverse!). If you make this dicentrically group
selective or polycentric gene centric then the reverse also holds reducing
the theory to _unintelligibility_.
I agree that more work has to be done on defining the unit of
selection. In fact, a lot more work. However, the unit of selection is
going to remain just as plastic in biology as the coordinate system is
in physics. The unit of selection is an abstract concept with fuzzy
borders. As we understand more, the borders may have to be moved
around a bit for convenience. Ultimately, the only way to get around
the unit of selection is to look at the microscopic physics of the
particles that make up the "unit of selection."

I think the same is true for "gene centric" biology. It works to a
very large extent over a wide range of conditions. It breaks down and
new stuff is coming up. But it works for most of your examples.

JE:-
It fails entirely because the fitness of ANY one gene remains NON additive
(non reversibly set nested not just reversibly set intersected) to at least
one other locus within the same fertile individual only allowing _gene group
centricity_ and not gene centricity.
Gosh, you sound almost like Geraldus Bouw. What's wrong with
polycentricity? You are a little bit better, though. You have a core
truth which I hope people here don't discard 100%.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Are you an idealist? (was: Einsteins logic)
    ... > I KNOW that the LET current rest frame is the original rest frame. ... theory of relativity. ... > better than modern physics has. ... But you are correct, the scientific method requires ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is physics a science?
    ... Therefore physics is a knowledge ... different than what it is in another reference frame. ... electrodynamics book. ... time and measurement theory Einstein broke a cardinal rule. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Galilean transformation explanation of MMX
    ... Cartesian coordinates S to represent the frame of reference of the ... where it is reflected by the mirror. ... Nobody knows the essence of the physics they are talking ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Why SR? (was: Source Independency of Light Speed Without an Aether???????)
    ... the longer wavelength of that wave (in your frame of reference) ... to the wave changes. ... physicists changed the nature of physics and declared that a physics ... satisfy the principle of relativity in its simple form using the Galilei ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Question:Lorentz interpretation of SR vs to Einsteins
    ... My understanding of the history of SR is that Lorenz ... > Lorenz treated them as purely a mathematical convenience, while Einstein ... > mechanism that actually follows from classical physics: ... existence of an aether frame and of a slow ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)