A series of message in the
Brad McFall topic:
Brad McFall, in message 21, writes:
In NEWS AND VIEWS of the current NATURE is an article by Michor and Nowak titled "The good, the bad and the lonely" with the SUBtitle-abstract "In game theory, 'loners' who choose not to participate in fact promote cooperation between players. The dynamics of the game show phase transitions reminiscent of statistical physics."
First of all without even getting to 2nd base with the article it is not really PHYSICALLY possible to say that one has a "reminicence" of a 'phase transition" and have the TRANS anything kinematically be NOT a Part of Stat Phyiscs (if I am correct that Boltzmann NEVER had any idea of using infinite divisibility) provided I explain some thing in the history of science. Starting off a plauible assertion of any creationist this way is likely to have me bumped back to Kansas so rather lets say "dynamics" means "interactivity" and ask still if this still sounds like posting in c/e world whrils? I still think it does.
On ICR's discussion forum board, when it came time for me to acutally say something I was trying to promote the dash in the idea of eco-justice for which this article is not irrelevant to and so from that web site I could likewise have begun to try to intice the other plausible players to promote the continuance of disscuion for any given individual "abduction" in the process but alas I seem to have even out grown this kind of communication.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE RESULT OF c/e INDUCTION is to be able to "switch" to the "best reply dynamics" and that would be true if I, BSM , thought that c/e analogical to game theory. I never did. I allways felt the polerization was a formal debating position (moot) and no more and unfortunately that I have spent the past few years trying to "game" my way through discussions to get people either to play (post) to some useful outcome whether one would recognize this in this article or not I feel I really have used up the kitty store of inductive transference and am moving on to a purely deductive mode. Anne's thinking that I was only speaking to myself pretty much made this to be this way for for the 1hour a day I spend to post in c/e mode is certainly NOT talking only to myself which I do much of the other 23 hours (whether this system is Babylonian or not...).
I really doubt that "repoducing" with cellular automata has much to do with biology UNLESS Medel's Laws appear there phenomenologically as well (as any Darwinism) but THAT idea is pure speculation NO MATTER HOW PLAUSIBLE our little home grown c/e Quilt has become. There is something to be said about "memory" of c/e talk and no doubt I do feel "priveldged" to have a thread named on me but as for others catching on to the same kind of induction I did and still do to some extent before I start only posting out deductions seems unlikely.
I am not sorry that I have moved on from trying to define a common abduction but I guess this is just the way it was (before computer assisted science outsourced any informatic approach to a mental notion between the physicality of science and the microminuturization per information connection existed).
But if you meant me to pick something simple like what I am working on at HOME; that Garteh Nelson of AMNH may have been off the network to assert that Croizat's Tracks were simply uniformed area cladograms, then that at least for me would have been easier to say. (a simple denial would do (have done)).
Dont know if I succeeded with this.
Tranquility Base, in message 22 writes:
What could have been demonstrated without, let us say, a le sae par or two, is not without relevance or indeed precedence to the matter. As has been shown beyond doubt by Dirac, and is discussed even on the elementary school playground, we could never doubt that A PRIORI the siliconized society has made its contribution to c/e. Regardless, number theory, modulo so-called "induction evidence" has never clarified the role of epsilon in the differntiability of enzyme pathway state-curves.
During my sabatical in the Kremlin it occurred to me that Lord Kelvin may have been correct, at least in passing, when he commented on the extent of correlation between FEASABILTY vs, ipso facto baseball projectile dynamics. Nevertheless my duties restrained these investigations and instead I, whilst also entertaining considerations that Korean antiquities might not be a next stop, was prompted to participate in a collaboration with Kenwick. How polystrate decay entered into this is a subject for another time as my hour is up and Anne is calling.
Brad McFall, in message 29, writes:
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
What could have been demonstrated without, let us say, a le sae par or two, is not without relevance or indeed precedence to the matter. As has been shown beyond doubt by Dirac,
Yes, yes there is undoubtly a picture standing of Dirac and Feynman but Wolfram in the diagram gives the wink to Fredkin and neither of which is my best guess on the continuity that is PRIOR to the transition where discontinuity with Wolfram or Feynman for and Dirac is involved IN THE MODEL. You and I do not know if some bacteria use quarks to change introns etc and such is better left to the flat land of c/e fiction/talk talking fiction rather than a-working within the contraints of some template for the matter of infinite comparisions; which has not achieved this grammetelogical turn of the lexos naturalistically despite the move to, an emprically a posterirori orgin(for) any DEVIATION from is (by science) a gravational curvature in the thought.
quote:
and is discussed even on the elementary school playground, we could never doubt that A PRIORI
iT SEEMS to me that use of any a priori philosophy is only needed in the random window from which the choice of a black or white grey level is first picked up on in the dynamics that would be modeled from any electron exvolved where there is a problem in discontinuity brought on and in not by nature but by the scientific tools used in the discovery process of seperation or sorting saying nothing of the literay tradition that enabled mankind to so kindly write back to one another a lone or at home alone.
quote:
the siliconized society has made its contribution to c/e. Regardless, number theory, modulo so-called "induction evidence" has never clarified the role of epsilon in the diffe
Tranquility Base, in message 31, writes:
But of course Kenwick never did state specifically that decay amplitudes contributed to polystraitism, not even in his Springer-V monographs. It was said FOR him by some of the others (including Ervakld who returned my telegrams on more than one occasion) in the Forsight camp that monopole retention aided RATHER THAN hindered mutational polymorphisms. But, in as much as Maddocks influenced the reviewers, the plebs will never know of course other than what has emerged from unofficial commentaries in literature available only in Latvian, a Baltic tongue that I never mastered despite intense efforts to immerse myself in northern Slavic cultures including their courting rituals adopted from neibouring Finnish tribes in the pre-1200s. Is it opportunistic from a game theory point of view that these polymorphisms have non-Abelian generators and does this relate to the recent prime factoring algorithms from ETH and Prague (which I visited PRIOR to the marches)? That workers, "chaperoned" or not by party authorities from the enigma branch, can extract finite renomalizations from such polymorphisms is emphatically due, whether via Reimann or not, to the physicality of the underlying ersatz and does not, except in the most implicitly contradictory sense or formalism (either), establish quantum singularities as existentially plausible forms of psudeo-Maxwellian distibutions. At the conference dinner he added that, although not grandstanded in the plenary, nor expounded in the preprint other than in a footnote, hidden variables do nevertheless enforce gauge symmetries at the genomic level. That was news for me and aided the goulash and cabbage.
Brad McFall, in message 32, writes:
OK, you win.
Tranquility Bass, in message 33, writes:
Tranquility collapses in shock.
Moose
™ Version 4.2
(1)
