Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 0/103 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Our perfect place in the heavens..
Kolyahu
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 53 (27950)
12-26-2002 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Brad McFall
12-26-2002 6:18 PM


Have any of you heard of any approach that in its aspects is an amalgam of both the Creationist view and the evolutionistic viewpoints? I have thought of this for many years. There was a query on ,'what do plate tectonics, and orbits and trajectories have to do with it?" Much! in fact. If you stopped, and thought about how the lunar gravitational pull affects the tides, imagine utilizing the movement of plate tectonics to map the gravitational effects upon this earth by the other bodies in the solar system and beyond. Trajectories and orbits of heavy mass do correlate to plate movement, on a large scale. These movements are infitesmal on the average, but they can be measured. The relevance is that all things work together in the big picture. The mystical approach to the ancient texts of the Bible, can reveal all of these things. The Bible is not a unidimensional, literal work of art; it is filled with metaphor, hyperbole, and yes, it is imbued with ancient codes. These codes are too many to bring to bear on this thread, but I will state emphatically, that the first 6 days, were not man's 24hr. days. Time is a concept of men, its usage in the text is not always literal, at times it is merely symbolic. The Big bang? It happened during the morning of Gods'(?) first day in creating THIS world. It never states that there were no other worlds created, nor that there won't be others. Before Light, there was absolute nothingness. Now I have a question for all of you who argue against the Physics within the scriptures, or just don't understand their way of communing these things:
"In the beginning (B'reshis) created (Bara) God/The Powers (Elohim) (eth) The Heavens (Hashomayim) and the earth (V'Haaretz)...and the earth was void and without form.." Genesis/(B'reshis) 1:1 (Hebrew in parenthesis)
My Question: "How can you create something and yet it still not have any form?" If you can answer that, you are on the path to enlightenment and truth.
The number 40 is also a symbolic number, if you have a clue to this maybe there are a few who know my position in these matters. Shalom Alechem (It was a great big fizzle by the way, and not a bang, one that is still fizzling; and time is an arbitrary concept depending on the observer and the observed) So, what was there before that? Oh my god! I guess I've done it again. Sorry folks,I gotta go change my britches.
------------------
If not us,who; and if not now,when?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Brad McFall, posted 12-26-2002 6:18 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Brad McFall, posted 12-28-2002 9:04 PM Kolyahu has replied

  
zipzip
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 53 (27952)
12-27-2002 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Brad McFall
12-26-2002 6:18 PM


You sound like MegaHAL (do a google search if you do not know what this is) after it has just digested my junior-year undergraduate biology and physics texts. Either that or you have just finished a stint writing essay passages for next year's SAT.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Brad McFall, posted 12-26-2002 6:18 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-27-2002 12:51 AM zipzip has not replied
 Message 35 by Brad McFall, posted 12-28-2002 9:12 PM zipzip has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3946
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 33 of 53 (27954)
12-27-2002 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by zipzip
12-27-2002 12:11 AM


Dave ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by zipzip, posted 12-27-2002 12:11 AM zipzip has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5112 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 34 of 53 (28040)
12-28-2002 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Kolyahu
12-26-2002 10:24 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Kolyahu:
Have any of you heard of any approach that in its aspects is an amalgam of both the Creationist view and the evolutionistic viewpoints? I have thought of this for many years. There was a query on ,'what do plate tectonics, and orbits and trajectories have to do with it?" Much! in fact. If you stopped, and thought about how the lunar gravitational pull affects the tides, imagine utilizing the movement of plate tectonics to map the gravitational effects upon this earth by the other bodies in the solar system and beyond.

That's a "neat" thought. I never thought of doing that but as I have had to leave panspermia open in my theorizing for all inclusiveness (but I doubt a fusion of creation and evolution will actually work (I think these are SOCIAL distinctions and at best psychological only)I am open even to gravitational effects from other layers in the systematic consitution but I would want to understand any effect of the magnetic field of the earth first. But as for the other way around...that I have thought of but one would probably get the space that the gradient gravity wise was participory in/to first from something like g-force total and I would at least not know why not just to consider the plates if moved, moved due to our ignorance of internal to earth motions that could ON YOUR idea compete with Newton's assumption of the earth as a point if we were not longer on point to point relations in this discussion.
quote:
It never states that there were no other worlds created, nor that there won't be others. Before Light, there was absolute nothingness.
I am not sure I follow what other worlds these are in the context of this thread on Earth orbit possibilites. I was actually trying to be less physical here and was attempting to explain how we can get the idea of the low probability of life being anywhere else precisely because we thought that in probabilistic terms. I do not thik however that one needs take the next step from this probablism to assert the probability of life elsewhere. If there is then we should be able to use Earth distributions to project its presence esle we would have a discovery on our hands to which kind I am less prone to speculate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Kolyahu, posted 12-26-2002 10:24 PM Kolyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Kolyahu, posted 12-29-2002 5:24 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5112 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 35 of 53 (28041)
12-28-2002 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by zipzip
12-27-2002 12:11 AM


It only seemed like that to you because those posts that seem that way are usually "developmental" as to me developing more precisely by posting to say just what I wanted to say. My brother works with writing programs that handle "natural language" but not me; I think Chomsky is bunk(I disagree with his notion of "genetic program" certainly anthropologically). But that is this then a coment on a comment which needs to be stoped for the threads to make any sense at all. The cofusion arose because I was working out two different kinds of expressions for connecting DNA(timed) stucture and structures DNA creatures can make for which it was resolved not by the questions put here but by reading Helmholtz on the electrotonic state but again that is not about the Earth orbit but only the things on it that may or may not be following IN THE FUTURE the same trajectory. Arguing the past of the line of flight is even more difficult (but not necessarily impossible)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by zipzip, posted 12-27-2002 12:11 AM zipzip has not replied

  
Kolyahu
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 53 (28074)
12-29-2002 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Brad McFall
12-28-2002 9:04 PM


I was simply stating that altough there is what you and I consider life on this planet, and it is in part due to the incredible make up of it; it is still far from perfect. If we gauge perfection in the same way, I do not know. If it can happen here it can happen elsewhere, unless this was the first such planet with the distinction of having life, life in the terms we, humans know. I'm simply stating that the visible reality is only part of the cosmos. We are becoming more and more aware of this. The way to create something and it still have no form, is to imagine it or plan it out. It has been created in the mind, but until one has the materials and equipment it will have no form. If you think that this world is perfect in its position and physical make up, I could argue that because of its imperfections there is life on it. So, where would that lead? Perhaps we are the imperfection, and life as we understand it, is not what was supposed to be. There are alot of suppositions we could analyze. For the most part, I am convinced that in size comparison, the life on this 25,000 mi. sphereoid called Earth, is as the dust of the earth. In that case by metaphor, man was formed from the life on the suface of this planet; and thereby the scripture at Genesis means the same thing as evolution.
Now, with that said, other worlds can mean ,'worlds within' as much as the material reality. An atom is a solar system in a small scale. So, is this a perfect world? Is it situated possibly because a large mass flyby left it reeling and some of the matter from it sprinkled DNA substraight throughout the atmosphere into a cycle that began because of the changes in apogee and perigee? Sh-t happens. What would our life cycle become on this planet if there was an interruption in the decay mechanisms? You see the venture becomes an endless one. Shalom

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Brad McFall, posted 12-28-2002 9:04 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Brad McFall, posted 01-04-2003 11:05 PM Kolyahu has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5112 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 37 of 53 (28423)
01-04-2003 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Kolyahu
12-29-2002 5:24 PM


"until one has the materials ...it will have no form"
I do agree with you pretty much up to here. Trying to think of the form-making that life did ASSUMING MILLIONS OF YEARS STABILITY per taxa is something I have been thinking about since the 70s energy crisis when Carter suggested we needed new sources of energy and my solution was to get it from the historical stability of what "no form" you quite ably reason to. On the merits of the terms, it does not seem that you can be wrong, but consider the IMAGINARY FLUID that Maxwell suggested for REPresenting Faraday's electrotonic state as provisional until or unless it was used to find what the imagination was in reality and given the modern attitude towards Differential Eqauations ther may be FORM here in the shape of CLOSED CURVES.
The conceptual error that misses this idea was sunk by Maxwell in a footnote about the difference of capacity and intensity. Microsoft wants to use a capacitive mouse but unless one has idea of the shape of the physiology it could target (we do not) we can but continue with modern technology to continue to perpetuate this confusion or fusion scientifically. I mere closed curve without a topology isnot much in the way of form but it is not deductively obvious to me that one can not infer some topology if the same life we could mention together were grounds to continue to talk along with these more abstract ideas from the prior interaction of physics and math.
I donot say it is "perfect" in position and physical make-up for the above analysis did not rely on such much but only on a steady motion and some form of undulation which COULD be only a "bunch" of closed curves without substance (in the genes say as logical thing without its acutal materiality considered).
I guess I do not understand the theological connection of sin and (im)perfection but I do not think my workings above are Carnal and Double Minded as some in Bible Study have seemed wont to divide words with me on.
I do think (war asided) that life on this planent is as it is "supposed" to be. As far as GENESIS and Evolution I found it interesting to note that GOULD could actually read a few of these days but not as many as I did but again that is by Morris standards not as I think I read you to say. I am not as familiar with creationism than the 'evo' I post but I think I read this recently in A LONG WAR AGAINST GOD which required a bit of a theological frame of mind to get into the reading.
ATOMICS is only one path that the molecularization of science in the 1900 etc could have taken. Helmhotlz saw an alternative but because even he was at odds with his countryman the gentlemen of science pursued the more conservative course with only Einstein really treading into the deep waters with the void or without.
The history of the concept of MASS is indeed quite interesting and Einstein's rendering to contrast but Newton and Lebinz seems even a bit too primative for minds (other than mine as well) today.
We may indeed see a such interruption by nanotechnology but I will be roting most likely if or when this happens. It would not be S to me.
Peace On Earth GOOD will to ALL.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Kolyahu, posted 12-29-2002 5:24 PM Kolyahu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Kolyahu, posted 01-05-2003 11:06 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Kolyahu
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 53 (28460)
01-05-2003 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Brad McFall
01-04-2003 11:05 PM


I find it simply strange that once an observation is made by a human mind, that mind then forms a supposition upon the observation; to which an entire science can be founded upon. Bohr's atom is an example of my thesis that his envisionment actually lead to the science we now call 'nuclear physics'. Yet, an atom is not as simplified as Bohr's model. We as yet have been unable to stop- motion -image a single electron. We are getting closer to that, but it is as yet beyond our abilities. So, what will we actually see if we succeed? Will it be exactly as it was envisioned? If so, Perhaps the observer who place his ideas upon it's substance, actually created the material by his envisionment.
Oiy Vey! What am I sayink? I am saying that before Bohr's concept there were others, yet science went with Bohr's conceptions and thereby created the entire working knowledge of atomics by that said same idea. The idea preceeded the science, yet the idea is now considered reality. Did Bohr creat the atom? Yes, I would suggest that by his envisionment and the mutual acceptance of the premise, Bohr's idea became a physical truth.
This is in fact part of the grand theory of relativity, when the observer becomes part of the observation relative to infinity.
The Biblical exegesis (through ancient kabbalah/mysticisms) renders the same principle. We were created in the image of The powers (Elohim) acting in one accord. They/it spoke this reality into existence ex nilo (from nothingness/ chaos theory), in this image, man also is a creator. Forming a thought then putting it to utterance. Once spoken and the powers (Other people, their mindsets and their resulting actions) act upon those words, the word he spoke becomes a truth and as time is a forward measurement in this curvature, his word does become a reality.
My quest-ing on this is not something easily grasped. Had Mr. Bohr envisioned the sub structures differently, would not our nuclear sciences be in a different abstaction than they are? Of course they would. Therefore Bohr's envisionment has become the reality by our agreement to it. I would suggest looking at the nothingness that is the 99% of our reality for the greater problem solving, than by looking at the 1% which is matter.
Okay, I am saying that God's days are not human days. I am saying that the account in Genesis is not so much about the particulars, but is a brief about the order in which things developed. When it says'" and God said,'Let there be Light." It is not talking about the spectrum of what man knows of as light in the English sense. It is talking about Radiant energy of all wavelengths, even that which man has no knowledge of, the energies that are beyond Plank's constant in velocity, etc. (my basis for this assumption:Equal and opposite reactions.) Do I say that there is no God? Of course not, I've just proven there is a Creative force of unity. The great I am, just is. By the acceptance of an ancient envisionment, although in a deeper way than any institutionalized religion, the concept became reality. The concept was there before mankind was, so therefore there is a God, it is not what any of us can even imagine it to be, hence a prohibition against idolatry to remind us of our minor part in the scheme of things. Yet, we are like Him/It, in that we too can create by use of imagination and common concensus, this is the secret to how the sea was parted for Moses and Israel, They agreed to a reality that was beyond imagination to capture, the nothingness that is thru all and in all, the 99% of reality that man doesn't account for. May YHVH the God of Israel, the Father in heaven, bless you with His Light. To Life! my friend, and Shalom

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Brad McFall, posted 01-04-2003 11:05 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Brad McFall, posted 01-05-2003 11:48 PM Kolyahu has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5112 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 39 of 53 (28461)
01-05-2003 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Kolyahu
01-05-2003 11:06 PM


In my opinion you and i would see a "fundamental series" in the flame spectra (a guess). I have always been taken in my ignorance of particle physics with a purely numerical attempt to go beyond Bohr by attempting to predict all flame spectra from a foundation of Hydrogen. This attempt seemed to fail but I always continued to wonder if using Hydrogen and some group theory sampling from a denumerable subset of the potential infinity of the rest would not suffice. Alas I am more interested in biology than physics.
I dont consider this reality. So I am still not back here with getting the thread beyond the point with JOHN. Adieu.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Kolyahu, posted 01-05-2003 11:06 PM Kolyahu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Primordial Egg, posted 01-06-2003 11:03 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 53 (28495)
01-06-2003 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Brad McFall
01-05-2003 11:48 PM


What do you mean by "...some group theory sampling from a denumerable subset of the potential infinity of the rest.."?
PE
------------------
Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense - Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Brad McFall, posted 01-05-2003 11:48 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Brad McFall, posted 01-06-2003 3:20 PM Primordial Egg has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5112 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 41 of 53 (28512)
01-06-2003 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Primordial Egg
01-06-2003 11:03 AM


When WWII was in progress and Von Weisaker and Hiesenberg were held up in Germany near France with some aluminum and the idea of "transformation" within the periodic table the Brits got to them first and yet when it comes to learning chemistry there does not seem to be BERG's gun to the head incident but rather no-notion of the potential infinity of the table into Cantor's actual infinity despite the fact that later V- went on to lecutre abroad about infinity and quantum mechanics and did some siginficant UR work with/on a bit of Aristotle. I spoke with this guy.
Meanwhile in Pittsburgh USA some phhysicists were attempting to numerically calcualte flame spectra locations from series in the Hydrogen atome which LOOKED exactly like how Cantor translated phenomeologizes infinite fundamental series. The double lines etc could be represented by 2w rather than one potential inifinty w which is the order of periodic table. Both ordinations despite a difference likely in the inaccesible and disturbing cardianl are denumerable however.
Now develop the group theory and select it artifically, find it by natural selection, relate it to cosmology and wa la - a microwave oven. NOt what I was headed for however the motion with respect to rest becomes....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Primordial Egg, posted 01-06-2003 11:03 AM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Primordial Egg, posted 01-07-2003 6:19 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 53 (28568)
01-07-2003 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Brad McFall
01-06-2003 3:20 PM


quote:
Meanwhile in Pittsburgh USA some phhysicists were attempting to numerically calcualte flame spectra locations from series in the Hydrogen atome which LOOKED exactly like how Cantor translated phenomeologizes infinite fundamental series. The double lines etc could be represented by 2w rather than one potential inifinty w which is the order of periodic table. Both ordinations despite a difference likely in the inaccesible and disturbing cardianl are denumerable however.
Flame Spectra in the hydrogen atom? I was under the impression that the hydrogen atom was completely understood (and not fractal). Are you talking about spectra from starlight?
Also, when you talk about potential and actual infinities relating to Cantor, are you referring to the Cantor set (self-similarity working across all scales?) or a means by which actual infinites are realised in nature? If the latter, can you "explain" further?
PE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Brad McFall, posted 01-06-2003 3:20 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Brad McFall, posted 01-07-2003 1:07 PM Primordial Egg has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5112 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 43 of 53 (28602)
01-07-2003 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Primordial Egg
01-07-2003 6:19 AM


I was refering to a lecture that Hans Bethe had for Weisaker and arragned "office hours" to which I spoke with the VON after he talked on Aristotle Infinity and Quantum Mechanics to which later I pointed out to him that he had appropriated Cantor's notion of ACTUAL infinity (not what Wolfram is for instance doing with the "cantor set" though I am not clear in my own mind if wolfram's mathematica does work with inifinty in the acutal (potenial(Bolzano),actual(post denumerablity), absolute(ordinal of all ordinals))sense or not)) when he said "potential" (Von Wesiaker actually used the term "potentail infinity" when disucssing quatum stuff which IS actual infinity).infinity during the lecture in dissusing Aristotle actually.
Yes you are correct to indicate that IF hydrogen was 'completely undetstood' than my approach would garner less support but because it is a perceptual thing I can not give it up solely on the basis of a claim (not being a phyisicst) I do not understand. I DO understand that Bohr asserted as to any innersight or rather loss of it with the {adinvent} of QM that he did not think his idea was good enough since it only applied to hydrogen... And the little bit of physics I started to understand is that NOBLE gases are ADDED to some experimental setups to get the compeletion if indeed physically it is that.
The interesting "development" is that Wolfram only claims to have more direct relevance to quatum field theory and not mechanics persay and since Cantor THOUGHT that opticks could be approached with transfinites and that Catastrophe Theory can do some work with caustics I have not reasoned out this possibility (of mine) of introducing Cantors transfinites more directly into science theory. Wolfram has abandoned this more classical/tradiational approach to the relation of math and creation creativity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Primordial Egg, posted 01-07-2003 6:19 AM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Primordial Egg, posted 01-07-2003 1:39 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 53 (28605)
01-07-2003 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Brad McFall
01-07-2003 1:07 PM


quote:
I was refering to a lecture that Hans Bethe had for Weisaker and arragned "office hours" to which I spoke with the VON after he talked on Aristotle Infinity and Quantum Mechanics to which later I pointed out to him that he had appropriated Cantor's notion of ACTUAL infinity (not what Wolfram is for instance doing with the "cantor set" though I am not clear in my own mind if wolfram's mathematica does work with inifinty in the acutal (potenial(Bolzano),actual(post denumerablity), absolute(ordinal of all ordinals))sense or not)) when he said "potential" (Von Wesiaker actually used the term "potentail infinity" when disucssing quatum stuff which IS actual infinity).infinity during the lecture in dissusing Aristotle actually.
Von Weiszacker seems to me to have been (assuming death here) a very spiritual kind of physicist, in trying to relate his ideas to the metaphysical. I'm interested in what he had to say about infinities and the "quantum stuff" you mention, as I'm not sure what your reasoning is behind quantum stuff being denumerable. I guess it depends on what exactly it is you're talking about, but nothing springs to my mind.
quote:
Yes you are correct to indicate that IF hydrogen was 'completely undetstood' than my approach would garner less support but because it is a perceptual thing I can not give it up solely on the basis of a claim (not being a phyisicst) I do not understand. I DO understand that Bohr asserted as to any innersight or rather loss of it with the {adinvent} of QM that he did not think his idea was good enough since it only applied to hydrogen
In physics parlance, hydrogen has been understood - it can be solved theoretically to high precision. Obviously, there is not as yet a theory of quantum gravity which would potentially affect the nth decimal place, so I guess there is room for speculation, although this could only start to become significant at or around the 12th or 13th decimal place, I think. Can you shed some light on how the Pittsburgh physicists managed to entice Cantor infinites out of the flame spectra (can't find anything on this on the web)?
quote:
The interesting "development" is that Wolfram only claims to have more direct relevance to quatum field theory and not mechanics persay and since Cantor THOUGHT that opticks could be approached with transfinites and that Catastrophe Theory can do some work with caustics I have not reasoned out this possibility (of mine) of introducing Cantors transfinites more directly into science theory. Wolfram has abandoned this more classical/tradiational approach to the relation of math and creation creativity.
I haven't read Wolfram's book - I was put off by the reviews unanimously screaming egomania. My poor understanding of it is that, at its heart, cellular automata generate the laws of nature as we see them. He answers the question "why is there something rather than nothing" by postulating that there is everything - is this understanding correct?
And is it a book you recommend?
PE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Brad McFall, posted 01-07-2003 1:07 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Brad McFall, posted 01-07-2003 9:33 PM Primordial Egg has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5112 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 45 of 53 (28621)
01-07-2003 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Primordial Egg
01-07-2003 1:39 PM


I wasnt really concentrating on the lecture because Roland Hoffman (NOble Prize Chemist had told me he would not speak to me about art and science unless I had first taken a course in Quantum Mechanics and being annoyed as well as not in a position to take the course given my credits needed in evolution... but I was cognizant enough to realize his misuse of CANTOR'S IDEA. I simply confonted him on this afterwards and he verified that I was correct. He wanted to know if I was a mathematician, philosopher or physicist which to his suprise I replied I was a biologist and that was during my senior year when the rest of the biologists could not understand this point so I asked and Weisaker wrote a note to the administraion testifiying to my ability to communicate with infinty. It didnt matter they had already started sending my correspondece to the pschye dept in the HEalth center.) But... since WOlfram was not distinguishing Quantum field theory and quantum mechanics it seems that any denumerable use of inifity say in a notebook represenation of a cantor set as a means to ordinate cellular automata that have recursive rules in part based on the infinity in say your cantor set then if this kind of framework is enabling one to build nanotechnology able to filter say different species of bacteria-protozoan Lotka-VOterra population strutures there could be on reading and following up some of WOlfram use of inifinty with his program. I had before his new book been focused in on the complex plane but I was not certain what the application from that pure math would be. Since Wolfram has put forth the principle of computatinal equivalance the "intuition" to create ideas of this sort is certainly better facilitated then as I and every one else was at the earlier time (1984) trying to fiugre out what to do with WOlfram's categories of automata. THis time I almost think I see Mendel in his work. But that is a strech. Yes I would recommend the book but read it VERY critically.
I am not at home and I havent seen the book for years. It is a small volume published, I dont know the 50s? out of physics dept some where in Pittsburgh. I had never seen it referenced and I think I had found it by browsing in Cornell's Clark Library. I dont even remember the math that was used. As to the progress of physics you could know that Rene Thom of France deplored US backed physics that only worked on moving the decimal place a fraction during a whole generation. The kind of work that WOlfram does is very discrete and it may not be what is needed to fill out these outlines in physics. Thanks for the communikay. It was ME that read Cantor into the text. Maybe even my memeory is wrong on this but I think I recall representations of limit functions that were to map to the flame spectra positions which phenomenologically matched what I thought of when reading Cantor (in English) on fundamental series and reversed series. I have wondered if by reversing a fundamental series one could build a new theory of the atom that connects other limit sequences from other flame spectra in other parts of the table. Instead Cornell went psychiatric on me and didnt want to do the hard work needed to refine a nascent physcial intution. This is what Wolfram does and I think that is just great. I had taken a course with L. Pierce Williams who knows just about as much as any body about Faraday and he failed me when I tried to figure out how to apply Feynamans QED to snake color patterns. I was only an undergraduate then...
Yeah I saw him at Cornell and people laughed when he would say... "and you know MATHAMATICA is an example" for they thought he was only trying to promote his business. I was able to see thru this hubris of his which is quite thick because I had been reading Pascal on the Arithmetic Triangle a few months prior to where I had begun to think about Wolfram's ideas independent of his own notion of irreduction in terms of what the Christian Pascal said and Galton may have known and Gibbs may differ from WOlfram on etc.
The reviews really just repeat what he says in the lecture. One has to get to the back of the book before the stuff really starts to come together but if one restricts the sholarship to "complexity theory" one is indeed bound to miss the message this time. He did a laudable job but I would prefer to use Catastrophe Theory myself so instead I try to work on both and indeed I think Wolfram's work finally closes the anti-teleology book on Mayrs notion of SOMATIC PROGRAM. I havent posted anything here yet on attempts to derive echinoderm "spatial phenotype programs (not straight genic expression)" from penrose tiling on his notion of network nodes but the systematics seemed to map quite phenomenologically appealing to sea cucumbers, basket stars, sea starts, urchins etc that I dont doubt the program can be used to faciliate PLOTTING anatomy.
but this begins to get off topic.
Wolfram thinks that complex forms and complexity is merely a simple program and when compared to the CGI necessary to read this post he is probably correct but since celluar automata can represent arbitary rule programs he thinks he sees all nature in these things just as NEwton did Calculus. THAT is what is at issue for him not his pride in believing that this is the way science will go.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Primordial Egg, posted 01-07-2003 1:39 PM Primordial Egg has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024