Darwin's Discovery: Design without a Designer

[Graybeard]

Yeah Greg, I was a Nietzsche freak for years, until I read all his works, then I was able to see through him. He's a transcendental relativist, which I detest, as it's not a grounded reality, to the real world I now live in, and really always have

I am only quoting him for this reason ... the closed system. Which I will explain.

But here is the Link where I got it from ... was reading up on Lefebvre. He published a book called 'The production of Space. Nietzsche was the opening quote.

CLICK

The production of space he is referring to is not the same as that you have explained. Talking about an amphorous space which I don't fully understand.

And what about the em field's influence...?

I see the EM fields as responsible for the tremendous stability of matter. The Nuclear forces as responsible for the 'production' of matter. Please understand these are loose terms, not specific.

What about great minds, like Huygens, Newton, Einstein's and Feynman's influence on evolution improvements...? That is if it weren't for the silly political fears of nuclear power for civil uses, etc... I really don't understand what you mean by closed system, as I don't see any systems as closed__imo, they all inter-flow into each other, somewhere...

Fully agree ... about the great minds.

A Closed System:

If we consider the Earth a closed system (Environment > Ecological > Economic) ... ( I just noticed I got 3 E's in a row .. lol) Then in general its 'import' of energy is from the Sun. Its export of energy is thru thermodynamics as the Earth cools. Lets forget its exports for the moment.

A Carbon and Water based life Form has only one requirement. To Continue. To continue it needs to procreate. To procreate it needs energy. It obtains energy (fuel) thru food.

In fact a little joke could be ... The life purpose of any species is to Eat, Root, Shoot and Leave. In Australia 'root' means to copulate and 'shoot' means to reach orgasm. And this joke is usually applied in a derogatory manner by Aussie Females towards the average Aussie male, as in, 'All the bastard does is come home, eats, roots, shoots and leaves'. I see it as just doin our bit for Evolution.... lol

Therefore energy is crucial to Life. The only 'importer' of energy Life has is the blue-green algae or slime ... which was the only form of life on the planet for around 4 billion years ?

The point is that it (the algae) abstract energy from the Sun, and we (all other flora and fauna) subtract it from them via a complex food chain. Even the flora live on decomposing organics (soil) We are all predators and scavengers because we live on each other and ultimately rely on the algae as our grocery shop.

So a closed system in this case displays invariance. Lets use Prof's Yin-Yang symbol ... one half is life and the other half is energy .... If Life increases then the available energy decreases. For example, overfishing ?

The Unseen Forest

An unseen "forest" of microscopic beings fills the upper 200 meters of ocean, exerting an influence on this planet every bit as profound as the forests on land. The diverse phytoplankton species inhabiting the ocean's surface waters--which mainly consist of single-celled cyanobacteria, diatoms and other kinds of algae--form the base of the marine food web.

They account for roughly half the photosynthesis on the earth, remove nearly as much carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as all land plants, and supply about half the oxygen we breathe. Without the activities of these free-floating plantlike organisms, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would triple.

That phytoplankton could accomplish so much with so little recognition from the general public is surprising [see "The Ocean's Invisible Forest," by Paul Falkowski; Scientific American, August 2002]. Even more remarkable, scientists had no idea which microbial species performed the bulk of these vital functions until 15 years ago, when Sallie W. Chisholm of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Robert J. Olson of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and other collaborators discovered marine cyanobacteria from the genus they later named Prochlorococcus.

They are the smallest and most numerous photosynthetic organisms known and arguably the most plentiful species on the earth, responsible at times for more than half the photosynthesis in the seas. Cyanobacteria such as Prochlorococcus were the planet's first oxygen-producing creatures and are, in a broad sense, the ancestors of all higher plants.

[Source Unknown]

Now if you read Nietzsche's quote you will see the similarity of what he says and how I believe Evolution works.

And do you know what "the world" is to me? Shall I show it to you in my mirror?

This world: a monster of energy, without beginning, without end; a firm, iron magnitude of force that does not grow bigger or smaller, that does not expend itself but only transforms itself; as a whole, of unalterable size, a household without expenses or losses, but likewise without increase or income; enclosed by "nothingness" as by a boundary; not something blurry or wasted, not something endlessly extended, but set in a definite space as a definite force, and not a space that might be "empty" here or there, but rather a force throughout, as a play of forces and waves of forces, at the same time one and many, increasing here and at the same time decreasing there ...

Frederick Nietzsche, The Will to Power.

Perhaps this is the 'space' that Lefebvre is talking about ??

By understanding simple Boolean maths, and his even simpler uses of them, probability calculations as you've already mentioned. Any large ideas must be handled with probability math, it's just the trick to use the correct probability math for the situation at hand__Huygen's, Boole's, Jevons', Peirce's and Keynes' are safest bets, as Bayes, Laplace, and Boltzmann corrupted too many others with false statistical foundations of their probability maths. And what you're referring to as differing interpretations is exactly what game theory probability is all about__How do you find a terrorists possible and probable actions, unless you play every scenario out, just as Feynman had to do to achieve QCD...? These are serious military games possibility and probability maths...

This one is saying a mouthful

.... Keynes under my investigation shows flaws in 'stationary state economics'. (Don't get me wrong ... I know phu***all ... but i think I see a flaw)

... on terrorism I have my own ideas too. I see it as a result of causal events and not the thing to be addressed. (However of course it needs addressing until the cause is fixed)

Feynman I place great store in.

Greg, anything you want explained, like the above__Feel free to ask, anytime. I love answering good questions...

I do thank you. And I admit that your expertise is great .... We think different, thats obvious. I can see that a debate with you has to be your way or no way at all .... lol

I'm just joking and don't be offended .. If the Mountain won't come to Mahomet, then Mahomet must go to the mountain

cool bananas ... greg

[austintorn@aol.com]

If the FS is causeless, being eternal, how would any kind of direction, plan, or intent have been imparted to it?

I suppose that we could say that it's likely that a bunch of stuff moving around could and would amount to something further.

How come it took so long?

Well, no real plan.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Figure it forward long into the future and back, and you have all answers. The tick, tick, tick decay of the caesium atom --> 10^137 years out, and 10^137 years back __ That's a long time Austin, but light is a feeble speed when the entire universal cycle is truly considered. At Rad-Limit all em particle waves super-symmetricize creating the prime mover of nearest possible absolute zero k to push it all back into another cycled universe. A simple mechanical engine__In Toto...

If the FS is causeless, being eternal, how would any kind of direction, plan, or intent have been imparted to it?

I suppose that we could say that it's likely that a bunch of stuff moving around could and would amount to something further.

How come it took so long?

Well, no real plan.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Greg, wrong Lefebvre__I said Russian__Vladimir Lefebvre__ LINK

I thought you had the wrong guy, from what you stated last night, but figured you'd figure it out...

Oh well... I posted the link after you viewed the post...

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi Greg, and let me see if I can clear up a few points of difference. First, please make sure you use the correct Vladimir Lefebvre, my Russian buddy....

I am only quoting him for this reason ... the closed system. Which I will explain.

But here is the Link where I got it from ... was reading up on Lefebvre. He published a book called 'The production of Space. Nietzsche was the opening quote.

CLICK

The production of space he is referring to is not the same as that you have explained. Talking about an amphorous space which I don't fully understand.

Wrong guy anyway, so let's forget about space, as it's not important to either one of our ideas, at this point...

I see the EM fields as responsible for the tremendous stability of matter. The Nuclear forces as responsible for the 'production' of matter. Please understand these are loose terms, not specific.

Yeah, this would take a much deeper conversation...

Fully agree ... about the great minds.

A Closed System:

If we consider the Earth a closed system (Environment > Ecological > Economic) ... ( I just noticed I got 3 E's in a row .. lol) Then in general its 'import' of energy is from the Sun. Its export of energy is thru thermodynamics as the Earth cools. Lets forget its exports for the moment.

You see, here's what I can't agree to, as to close a system that isn't closed, un-necessarily blocks the information and real source matter/energy, we need to understand the system, i.e., photo-syntheses, new field/matter/energy inputs, etc...

A Carbon and Water based life Form has only one requirement. To Continue. To continue it needs to procreate. To procreate it needs energy. It obtains energy (fuel) thru food.

And here's where the major debate lies__How much fuel/food comes from your closed environment, and how much comes from the sun and the greater Universe's em field/s...? This is where the heart of the debate is in all physics, chemistry and bio-physics. This must be settled, in order to process any information, bearing on real and total facts__and it's why I can't accept the closed system analyses__Laplace and Boltzmann are responsible for the earliest fallacies of the closed system analyses, and both were proved wrong by many, and Boltzmann finally committed suicide over losing all his arguments to Poincare' and others. Though Laplace discovered the first law of conservation, he fumbled much more science than he discovered... So, I try to stay away from the closed mindedness of the closed systems analyses, except where necessary to final and absolute details of specific subject analysis....

Therefore energy is crucial to Life. The only 'importer' of energy Life has is the blue-green algae or slime ... which was the only form of life on the planet for around 4 billion years ?

You see, when you leave out the suns and universes em rads, you leave out the most important matter/energy source of all life. Just take away the Honey Bee, which needs sunlight for life, as of course we all do, and all life is dead__Extinct. So, no closed system is possible__For me... I think the scientific need for understanding what's actually in the em rads is what must truly be investigated, as to how much matter is actually in that harmless lil' ol' photon...? We absolutely know there's something there, as the electron increases in mass, when absorbing photons__if ya know what I mean...?

The point is that it (the algae) abstract energy from the Sun, and we (all other flora and fauna) subtract it from them via a complex food chain. Even the flora live on decomposing organics (soil) We are all predators and scavengers because we live on each other and ultimately rely on the algae as our grocery shop.

So a closed system in this case displays invariance. Lets use Prof's Yin-Yang symbol ... one half is life and the other half is energy .... If Life increases then the available energy decreases. For example, overfishing ?

And here's still the area where we have a major difference. I do not see it as invariance, as the em Rads are always feeding the Non-Closed System__It's only when you do go to a closed system, that the problem of understanding becomes intractible. Yes, if you look at it as a falsely closed system, then the view is correct, to that system, but that system is not the reality as; "Field is everywhere..." "Rads is everywhere..." You can not remove this fact__Ever__It's eternally infinite by necessity of being eternally existing__FS must exist for anything to exist__Eternally__No Exit... ! Except of course to magic and gods, which I don't think you wish to go to...?

Now if you read Nietzsche's quote

you will see the similarity of what he says and how I believe Evolution works.

Perhaps this is the 'space' that Lefebvre is talking about ??

Wrong Lefebvre anyway, and Nietzsche was a bad transcendental relativist escapist philosopher anyway, so his ideas can't be used for any sound science views, if you know what I mean. Though I do like some of his material for a good read, and entertainment__"The Anti-Christ"__"The Super-Man"

This one is saying a mouthful

.... Keynes under my investigation shows flaws in 'stationary state economics'. (Don't get me wrong ... I know phu***all ... but i think I see a flaw)

That's because you're probably reading the far right conservative's false opinions of Keynes. If you check into what sound rational probability logic truly is, and notice I said rational and not just naked statistical probability, which is founded in Boltzmann Ergodicity, which has no true ground__but the real rational probability logic and math founded first by Huygens and Boole, later used by Gauss__which is actual/factual numbers ratios probability(least squares, etc...), and not numbers averages of dice throws__You will see who the real mathematicians truly are...

... on terrorism I have my own ideas too. I see it as a result of causal events and not the thing to be addressed. (However of course it needs addressing until the cause is fixed)

Yeah, then prove causal events, without the infinite regress popping in to destroy your logic... I bet you can't...

Feynman I place great store in.

He used the same type of factual numbers probability logic as did Keynes, Gauss, Peirce, Jevons, Boole and Huygens. One either uses real numbers averages, or coin flips. The wrong probabilists all use coin flip logic__What sense is that...? It's always a near 50/50 average__Non-sense. Whereas if real numbers are averaged over time series, you gain real results__Just as Feynman did and so did Keynes...

I do thank you. And I admit that your expertise is great .... We think different, thats obvious. I can see that a debate with you has to be your way or no way at all .... lol

I'm just joking and don't be offended .. If the Mountain won't come to Mahomet, then Mahomet must go to the mountain

cool bananas ... greg

Greg, I'm completely open to all information, as long as it can be proven to solid ground, and I do mean solid ground... And, that's rational math, logic, science and real physical experiments provable to ground__Earth or universal numbers, laws and formulas of...

Hope that helps,
Lloyd

[labelwench]

Perhaps the only 'closed system' is the human mind, when it becomes so inordinately fond of an idea that it excludes the possibility of examining same from the perspective of another.

Correct me if I am wrong, but in Science, nothing is cast in stone.

The best proof is held as currently correct, but new observations and claims to the contrary are equally welcome to undergo rigorous testing and the title of 'fact' is always up for grabs.

[Graybeard]

Hi Greg, and let me see if I can clear up a few points of difference. First, please make sure you use the correct Vladimir Lefebvre, my Russian buddy....

Ok ... got it ..... lol

You see, here's what I can't agree to, as to close a system that isn't closed, un-necessarily blocks the information and real source matter/energy, we need to understand the system, i.e., photo-syntheses, new field/matter/energy inputs, etc...

Yes ... I see your point ... but I was not referring to a totally closed system .... I said if we 'consider' the earth as a closed system ... then in General ....blah.

Algae receives and stores and converts the suns energy. Or if you like the 'em rads' (electro-magnetic radiation ?)

And here's where the major debate lies__How much fuel/food comes from your closed environment, and how much comes from the sun and the greater Universe's em field/s...?

The earth has what it has ... the sun (or em-rads) are what we import ... heat loss (em-rads) is what we export ..... Apart from man-kinds modern tech, algae are the converters of the suns-rads to stored energy. We (all other flora and fauna) predate on them. I am not speaking in detail .. eg: there are sources of life deep in the ocean that live on volcanic activity ... which is caused by tectonic plate movement ... which is caused by gravity ultimately .. which the sun contributes too.

I think at this level of debate we should not need to spell out every detail in every post. Generally speaking the Planets energy imports are supplied by the Sun ... is this generalisation OK ?

This is where the heart of the debate is in all physics, chemistry and bio-physics. This must be settled, in order to process any information, bearing on real and total facts__and it's why I can't accept the closed system analyses

The only closed system 'actual' is the Universe .... and if it is not then we need not go back that far yet. All other systems within are not totally closed.

You see, when you leave out the suns and universes em rads, you leave out the most important matter/energy source of all life. Just take away the Honey Bee, which needs sunlight for life, as of course we all do, and all life is dead__Extinct.

Its true ... but the bee needs more than sunlight ..... it needs flora which needs organic soils (material that was once alive) which, at the bottom of the food chain requires algae. The bee, along with all of us has evolved into a predator of less complex life forms ... we still need the sun 'directly' for some things such as vitamin 'D' (I tink). But generally speaking we get our protein by eating other life forms .. plant or animal.

So, no closed system is possible__For me...

Of course this is true. But the carbon cycle is a 'cycle' .... in the main it completes within itself .. only relying on 'top-ups' from the em-rads. I'm sure you know what I mean ... So if you prefer i can use the term 'Carbon-cycle' instead of 'Closed System' ... for my purposes it is the same. Sorry for any confusion here.

And here's still the area where we have a major difference. I do not see it as invariance, as the em Rads are always feeding the Non-Closed System

The Carbon Cycle has a built in governor. (not political ... but as in diesel engine) If demand outstrips supply ... supply shrinks ... the life making the demand collapses ... supply increases (relatively) ... and so the cycle continues ... as a diesel governor operates 'hunting' (mechanical term not bio) around a setpoint ... so does the carbon cycle. At times it deflects widely and then over corrects on the way back ... but it is self regulating. The setpoint for the Carbon Cycle is the maximum amount of Life it can support give the amount of resources.

Greg, I'm completely open to all information, as long as it can be proven to solid ground, and I do mean solid ground... And, that's rational math, logic, science and real physical experiments provable to ground__Earth or universal numbers, laws and formulas of...

Hope that helps,
Lloyd

I am sure .... despite what differences we have ... neither of us place any faith in the Spirit in the Sky. So where proof can be supplied it will be ... and where it can't be i will state clearly that it is my opinion only and other sources, other views, are as legitimate as mine ?

Lloyd .... sorry about the difference in terms ... sunrays and em-rads etc. And also will answer the 'Keynes' and 'Terrorism in another post. that way if we take those subjects further i can split them off into another thread ?

cool bananas ... greg

[melanie]

I am sure .... despite what differences we have ... neither of us place any faith in the Spirit in the Sky.

Notice the uncanny resemblance Greg?? ...... ROTFLMAO

[Graybeard]

.... Keynes under my investigation shows flaws in 'stationary state economics'. (Don't get me wrong ... I know phu***all ... but i think I see a flaw)

That's because you're probably reading the far right conservative's false opinions of Keynes. If you check into what sound rational probability logic truly is, and notice I said rational and not just naked statistical probability, which is founded in Boltzmann Ergodicity, which has no true ground__but the real rational probability logic and math founded first by Huygens and Boole, later used by Gauss__which is actual/factual numbers ratios probability(least squares, etc...), and not numbers averages of dice throws__You will see who the real mathematicians truly are...

Lloyd .... I am certainly not right wing. Left wing - labor - Democrat ??? Also I have read no 'far right conservative's false opinions of Keynes'. Also I know very very little about economics. So why am I making claims about Keynes ... lol ?

For those who don't know ( not you Lloyd ... lol) 'Stationary State Economics' does not imply stable prices, stable interest rates, etc. Its much more subtle ... it means that supply and demand of the 'physical product' should be regulated so that production as well as the full environmental cost of that production can be understood and controlled .... a loose explanation ... a better explanation CLICK

Basically if such a system is maintained then all financial issues, shares and commodities, etc .... are secondary and will be forced to fall in with the system.

Lloyd ..... I have a degree in IT .... as part of that degree I had to do 1 year of Economics on the principle that, 'If you don't know how it works .. then you can't design Software/Databases to control it'

I didn't like the subject at all to start with .. but after 6 struggling months ... something fell into place and I found it to be understandable. During this period I had to study Keynes .. and Stationary State. I believed what I was taught ... I did very well .... And moved on to other areas.

My interests are in the main Evolution, Anthropology and Science. At one period of my 'research' into these subjects. (I am not qualified in these areas .. just an outside amateur) I discovered any amazing piece of trivia. There was a period in the recent past .. when 'Rule Brittania' ruled the waves and the commodity Sugar neither increased nor decreased in price for 100 years.

For a commodity to stay stable or fixed for 100 years meant that all other major commodities must have followed suit .. Life must have been fascinatingly different in outlook .. so from an anthropological viewpoint I was looking at something unique. What would it be like living in such a system ? I tried to imagine a life where all prices were relatively stable .... where Father and Son and Grandson all drunk at the same unchanged Pub, and paid the same price for beer never varying.

I soon realised that was very nearly impossible for me to place myself in their shoes ... they're outlook would have been, on all subjects, so different from mine. But I found the reason (I tink) why sugar had remained so stable in price ... There was no drive to change technology when supply was meeting demand of the physical commodity ... and the rich were getting rich ... and so things stayed as they were.

So I went looking for other 'stable' periods in mankinds existence and I found many ... going back to prehistoric .... one such period lasted over a million years.

I thought about all this and tried to place it in context with Keynes 'Stationary State'. Statistically I found that whenever such a system as Keynes promotes .... And I don't decry it .. in fact I believed in it. ... but statistically and historically whenever such a system is in place I found that the world is not a very happy place

Half or a great percentage of mankind is enslaved. (sugar stabilty meant negroes and sugar plantations)
There is a clear and obvious distinction between the rich and poor. (those enslaved and those not)
The control of the 'commoditys' that are regulating the stationary state ends up bringing power to those 'appointed to control'. They drift (they are infiltrated) to having a greater interest in financial stability rather than commodity stability.

As I said ... I relied on no others economics to reach this outlook, nor did I follow any particular school of thought. I arrived at it thru the co-incidence of being forced to study economics and then accidentally applying anthropology to the system.

My opinions only, that I arrived at thru the back door. Economists study previous trends .. in fact they rely on them .. my opinion is they should study trends back into pre-history .... the Hominid who was struggling for resources back then ... as we do today ... was no different from us.

Stationary State is an excellent system and will work ... provided we are prepared to revert to an Indigenous lifestyle.

cool bananas .... greg

[Graybeard]

Notice the uncanny resemblance Greg?? ...... ROTFLMAO

Point taken Mel .... and your welcome in this thread

kiss from me pretty one.