Re: Evolution is NOT random
- From: John W Edser <edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:24:22 -0400 (EDT)
dkomo <dkomo871@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:-
Quantum events are the only events which in science are truly random in
the sense of being absolutely non-repeatable and acausal.
JE:-
It was and remains epistemologically invalid to propose that an event is
not caused. The only way non causation can make rational sense is to
suppose that it means we remain ignorant of any cause/causes so we have
to come up with falsifiable inductive guesses.
The Big Bang was uncaused. It arose from a quantum fluctuation -- an
*inherently* random event.
JE:-
My view is that Quantum Theory is is not a theory for anything. What it
presents is an astonishing but as yet _unexplained_ statistical
observation of nature. You do not explain natural events by simply
observing them (!), you have to go on to provide a falsifiable theory
which can evolve via its very own falsification e.g. Newton falsified
evolved into Einstein's Special Theory. This was only because Einstein's
new, unexpected, falsifiable frame of reference c (which is a velocity
maximand and not just a constant), replaced Newton's t and m which
became reduced to just variables which cannot provide a valid frame of
reference for anything.
The Michaelson Morley experiment, which proved that the velocity of
light remains constant, just like quantum mechanics, presented the world
with an inexplicable observation of nature, i.e. it did not explain
anything! It took the imaginative genius of Einstein to be able to
explain the Michaelson Morley experiment, i.e. come up with a
falsifiable theory which can explain it.
Nobody has the faintest idea as to what any uncaused, i.e. random event
actually represents. This includes the big bang, what happens within
black holes etc, etc. All we can do with randomness is provide useful,
mathematical models which allow us some predictability. Mathematics is
not a science. If mathematical models are allowed to replace falsifiable
theory then they are misused. Unfortunately this invalid substitution
happens all of the time within Post Modern evolutionary science, e.g.
non falsifiable, polycentric, Hamiltonian inclusive fitness has entirely
replaced falsifiable, monocentric Darwinian fitness. Inclusive fitness
cannot be falsified simply because it allows _contradictory fitness
maximands_ whereas Darwinism provides just the one fitness maxiamnd per
falsifiable selectee. The rule Hamilton based inclusive fitness on, rb>c
(which was derived from Haldane) does not include one, single fitness
constant. At least one is required to act as a critical fitness frame of
reference (as Galileo would have required). The net result is what
empirically constitutes the smaller inclusive fitness and what remains
the larger cannot be known within the rule. Comparing rb to c only
allows one variable to be compared to another. What is absolutely
require to turn Hamilton's mathematics into a theory is for both fitness
variables to be compared to some proposed fitness constant. The problem
here is exactly the same as the-unsolved-within-just-mathematics problem
presented by Zeno's Paradox so long ago:
Without either the start or the end of the proposed race acting as a
critical _constant Galilean frame of reference_ it remains impossible to
build a mathematical model which allows the hare to catch up and then
overtake the tortoise which was given a head start.
I'm trying to distinguish such events from
the mostly pseudorandom events in evolution theory.
JE:-
Please provide an example of a pseudorandom event within evolution
theory. Would meiosis be an example?
A documented natural event is either explained using a falsifiable
theory or it is not, period. There is nothing which is just gray, here.
In evolutionary theory only ONE fitness maximand per proposed selectee
remains rational, yet, Neo Darwinism presents us with more than just the
one. My understanding of proposed "pseudorandom events in evolution
theory" is that they just represent contradictory Neo Darwinian events
(not contradictory Darwinian events because none exist).
snip for brevity<
I recognize quantum events such as occur in radiation to be random.
JE:-
All this proves is that quantum theory is not a theory but a valid,
critical observation of nature which urgently requires a falsifiable
theory to explain it.
Quantum theory is verified thousands of times every day because
virtually every physicist, engineer, chemist and molecular biologist
uses it in his routine work.
JE:-
My view of quantum theory is that it is not a valid explanation of
anything. Like the Michaelson Morley observation, it presents us with an
unexplained documented statistical observation of nature which can be
repeated using mathematical modeling. Mathematics is not a science.
What do you mean by a "falsifiable theory"? If quantum mechanics is not
such a theory, I don't know what is.
JE:-
A falsifiable theory actually explains natural, documented events via a
critical induction (a generalization) such that _at least one deduction
from the proposed theory induction remains 100% prohibited_. All you
have to do to refute the theory is provide the prohibited deduction as
_an an empirical event_ (any documented observation of nature). For
example, Darwinian theory predicts that just the one fitness maximand
_rationally_ exist per proposed selectee. This I have identified as
Total Darwinian Fitness (TDF): the total number of _strictly_, FERTILE
ADULT FORMS reproduced per parent per population. To refute Darwinism
all you have to do is keep TDF constant and provide Darwinian evolution
at the same time. This is because selection is the default comparison of
each TDF within one population. IOW fitness is a reproductive maximand
proposed within a FINITE cycle of nature which TERMINATES at the adult
stage. Unlike irrational polycentric, Neo Darwinism each rational,
monocentric Darwinian selectee ends up with just ONE fitness number as a
proposed falsifiable fitness maximand per selectee per population: TDF.
This only allows populations as units of evolution and adult forms as
units of selection and not the reverse as proposed within Neo Darwinism.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Evolution is NOT random
- From: dkomo
- Re: Evolution is NOT random
- Prev by Date: Re: Evolution is NOT random
- Next by Date: Paper: Complex Cooperative Networks from Evolutionary Preferential Attachment
- Previous by thread: Re: Evolution is NOT random
- Next by thread: Re: Evolution is NOT random
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
