Re: Article: Group selection, a theory whose time has come...again
- From: "John W Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:56:14 -0500 (EST)
[I receive sbe as a mailing list. This reply post by Lorentz had not been
included in the sbe mailing list that I received. I apologize to Lorentz for
my delayed reply ]
"Lorentz" <drosen0000@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:fjig0f$1f6k$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:-
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.
JE:-
Lorentz,
Thank you for this discussion. IMHO centricity can only refer to Newton's
single "absolute frame of reference". Please note that Newton's use of
"absolute" only referred to falsifiable absolute assumptions and not to non
falsifiable absolute dictates. Two or more absolute frames make no rational
sense but two parts to one same frame, does. The solution to Zeno's paradox
that I posted here required just the one absolute assumption of a frame of
reference such that it defined the start and the end to the race. The
paradox is removed only when all variables are measured relative to these
and never just to each other. As I previously pointed out Newton's one,
i.e. strictly monocentric absolute frame assumption remained finite and
therefore had no other choice but to define an empirical base line that set
limits to advancing time as a controlling factor, i.e. defined a minimum of
two constants within one frame of refernce as was minimally required to
solve Zeno's Paradox. I propose that these represent two parts of just the
one, same _non reversible nested set_, i.e. any theory is represented by
just the one nested set which minimally requires two constants, one nested
within the other. Newton's limiting (nested) constant: the total mass of the
universe remains the same. His controlling constant: time advances at
exactly the same rate everywhere within the (one) universe. Because additive
and therefore entirely independent packets of matter were supposed
travelling in time at a constant rate which remained everywhere the same
this allowed a multitude of simultaneous independent events to unfold
providing the evolution of non living matter within the universe.
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.
JE:-
This infinite number of "equivalent spatial points" represent nested
constants. These were provided by that fact that packets of matter remain
additive (independent to each other) within the universe, i.e. these points
are just a deductive part from the one same Newtonian absolute frame of
reference. Newton's monocentric mechanics does allow a multitude of
simultaneous independent events to unfold within the one frame of reference.
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.
JE;-
I define a frame of reference as one nested set. If a constant A remains
nested within a constant B such that the reverse is not true then A must
limits B while B must control A. Such a basic irreversible nested set can
become expanded indefinitely. This can be visualised as continuously adding
a larger circle to one concentric set of circles where the smallest nested
set limits while the largest outermost circle controls. In evolutionary
theory the limiting circle represents one genomic set of genes while the
outmost circle Darwinian fitness which I falsifiably define to be TDF
(please refer to previous posts).
JE;-
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.
JE:-
Two or more absolute frames of reference, which I argue are required for any
polycentric approach, must contradict each other. This can be proven within
Hamilton's tricentric inclusive fitness proposition.
Here are all the alternatives:-
1) A or B or C : entirely monocentric.
2) A and B and C: also entirely monocentric. This is because even though A
includes B and C their association remains entirely additive. This means B
is just a population of A's while C represents a meta population of B's.
Here selection between A's within population B, allows B to evolve in an
entirely moncentric Darwinian way since A's and absolutely nothing else are
being selected. When you attempt to select one population B within a meta
population C you are only selecting each A within B on an entirely
independent (additive), i.e. separate basis. Even when you select against
one B population by destroying that entire population, all you are doing is
selecting against each A within one population of B's on an _entirely
independent basis_. Group selection wrongly argues that selecting one B
within a meta population C constitutes an act of selection between B's when
in fact it only represents more monocentric selection between Darwinian
fitness independent A's within one population of them termed one B, i.e.
it remains monocentric and not at all dicentric.
3) A and/or B and/or C: polycentric but contradictory. Hamilton's b within
rb>c remains minimally tricentric (genes/individuals/groups of individuals)
but contradictory. Such things can only exist as just a heuristic of
mathematics.
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.
JE:-
My understanding: the absolute Newtonian frame of refernce determined that
time advanced at exactly the same rate for each clock. This was refuted by
this experiment.
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.
JE:-
I define a dicentric theory as a theory with two and not just the one,
absolute frame of reference, i.e. must consist of two nested sets of
propositions which must be contradictory
I suspect what you mean is that there are covariant properties and
contravariant properties.
JE:-
I simply mean that there are complementary or contradictory propositions
where any empirical proposition cannot be both.
This roughly corresponds to the separation
between observer and system.
JE:-
The observer remains within and never outside of, any proposed absolute
frame of reference. This I ague is the principle of absolute self
consistency. If you breach it you must produce Epimenides Paradox.
I don't agree with you that such a
separation is really necessary for "falsifiable" science, but the
point is arguable.
JE:-
Sorry, but I have never argued this.
In any case, Einstein's physics and Newtonian
physics have wiggle room with respect to choosing a coordinate system.
JE:-
How do you wiggle out of an assumed constant without deploying a hidden
contradiction as your essential shoehorn?
An arbitrary description is not synonymous with ambiguous physics.
JE:-
Why not?
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.
JE:-
I contend that less work is required. IOW, falsifiable Darwinian
monocentric theory remains far too simple for most people to be able to
understand.
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.
JE:-
Be sceptical of your own view and try out the opposite: like physics,
Darwinian biology can only have one falsifiable frame of reference. Where
does this take you?
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."
JE:-
I argue that biology is not just a nested subset of physics but the exact
reverse: physics was and remains a nested subset of biology.
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?
JE:-
I cannot find any reference to Geraldus Bouw. Very simply: two or more
assumed absolute frames of reference must contradict each other because they
describe different theories.
You are a little bit better, though. You have a core
truth which I hope people here don't discard 100%.
JE:-
All I can say is that what I write here remains empirically falsifiable.
Many Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Article: Group selection, a theory whose time has
- Next by Date: Re: Article: Group selection, a theory whose time has come...again
- Previous by thread: Re: Article: Group selection, a theory whose time has come...again
- Next by thread: Re: Article: Group selection, a theory whose time has come...again
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
