The upcoming technological singularity / 'Alternative' scientific theorization

[rangrz]

A human male mates with a human female. A child is born.
There are now 3 humans.
1 male.
1 female.
1 child.
Yet:
1 + 1 = 3 is 'wrong'.
Does mathematics have to describe the real world, or can facts be overlooked if they are not consistent with 'reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive' theory?

Pythagoras' revenge!

That has nothing to do with 1+1. A human male+a human female=2 humans. Reproduction is not addition. If I have a piece of string, and I cut it half, I have two pieces of string!
Further, from a physics stand point, when a male and female mate, nothing new is formed, mass/energy, as always, is conserved, and is merely converted between physical states.

Like a 1.022Mev photon forming a positron/electron pair. 0 leptons + 1 vector boson= 2 leptons. Seems suspicious right...but not if you look it at as 1.022Mev + 0 = 1.022Mev. Since the mass/energy equivalent of the pair produced is conserved, and so is charge since (+1)+(-1)=0.

In other words, your argument is invalid.

 

[-=SS=-]

PA: Scientific theory is not without error. No scientist has the time to go back and verify every single experiment and probe it further, they take the foundation of their knowledge in assumption and good faith. Of course a lot of the stuff is completely valid and good science, but we're only human.. sometimes things are missed in experiments or calculations, and if theory is built upon prior theory that is incomplete or partially incorrect then you can end up going in the wrong direction. And this is just human error.. factor in corruption, money, politics, etc.. science is not immune from this. That's all I'm saying.

What does this even mean?

Biologists and geneticists just tend to ignore the impulse in life and the tendency for life to increase in complexity, seeing it as a kind of mechanical system devoid of spirit for lack of a better word. It's a belief they will not admit to or possibly even recognize they have, but it's there.

 

[rangrz]

So religion is the only alternative for someone who knows that they exist?

Not at all. You can simply it see as the fact that you do exist. You are composed of mass/energy/matter. That mass/energy/matter was a different state at previous points in time. Then a variety of physical processes took place, and it was converted into the system you call you. Not different than a computer chip having been sand on the beach, which use to be rocks, which use to be magma, which use to be interstellar dust, which use to be hydrogen, which use to be free protons and electrons, which use to be quarks, which use to be ???? before symmetry breaking. You are also from the same stuff.

Biologists and geneticists just tend to ignore the impulse in life and the tendency for life to increase in complexity

So what if it increased in complexity. As pointed out, everything to be just elementary particles. Then simple ions, then more complex ions, then atoms, then loose molecules, then complex materials, etc. On a more local scale, life is not an isolated system, so it can decrease entropy without violating anything. Life takes chemical energy input from the Earth, thermal energy input from the Sun (and the Earth) etc, and uses this energy to do work, so no violation of thermodynamics is happening, as total entropy of the entire system (The Sun, the Earth...the Universe) is still increasing despite local reductions in entropy.

 

[YellowNikes]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g
hope nobabies posted this yet. its kewl. and totally on long with the thread starters assumptions.

 

[rangrz]

To go back to this point:

If I have a mother and child attached by an umbilical cord, I have one 'thing'. Correct?

From 1 'thing' I can make 2 'things' by cutting. If the 'thing' is a human, which we say it IS, then:

1 = 2

I think you are confusing addition for division. And an equivalence for the result of an arithmetic operation involving more than one value. Further, you are taking extremely simplistic mathematics and assigning very off base semantic meaning to it, and using this as an anti-science argument.

Go check out the mathematical formalism of the standard model, see if it's this simplific, and ultimately, see if it successfully predicts empirical reality.

And back to the point. I have one vector boson of 1.022MeV and zero charge. Then it produces a pair of leptons with .510MeV and +1/-1 charge. On the surface it seems 1apple=2 oranges with +1 and -1 dollars.

But, as I shown before TRIVIAL dimensional analysis solves the conundrum. In the case of the baby, the same holds true. As does it with the string. (Did the total quantity of string, I.e. it's mass change? Can the babies mass be accounted for by the mothers food, water and air intake?)

 

[yougene]

Neo-Darwinism represents a single body of well-tested theories, not the biological equivalent of a unified field theory, and, to my knowledge, no mainstream scientist could claim otherwise in good faith. At any rate, abiogenesis is basically a separate topic that requires extensive collaboration with other scientific disciplines, viz. chemistry, physics, etc. (if that's what you were trying to drum up).

The problem is the Modern Synthesis was taken as a well defined and exhaustive theory not unlike one you would find in physics. Keep in mind this theory came into orthodoxy before we even knew about DNA. These days alternative mechanisms such as punctuated equilibrium and the developmental-genetic toolkit have a respectable place within molecular biology and the modern synthesis is taken as a broad generalization. But you will still find people who cling to the Modern Synthesis as precise fact of life(e.g Dawkins).

 

[rangrz]

I'm not anti-science at all.
However:
If everything that we may define as 'existing' is then further-divisible into constituent parts (a person, an organ, a cell, a (biological) nucleus, an atom, a proton, a quark, a 'to be discovered' etc.), then all numerical relations must be thought of as ratios on a certain scale.

Yet in the most basic case of procreation, numerical 'truth' doesn't work unless it denies the observable fact, and says that no life was created at all. How, then, may the number '1' have any real-world meaning, and how may physics have any meaning without requiring religion to explain what it denies categorically: that life may be created.

Yes, ratios are important in that sense...the fundamental dimensionless physical constants are ratios. (like the fine structure constant which is the coupling constant for the electromagnetic force, and is ~1/137~ of the strong force. etc)

Now, just because "life" wasnt originally formed in the early universe, doesn't require religion. Protons where not either. They formed from quarks. simple atoms where not, they formed from protons and neutrons. More complex atoms formed from those by stellar fusion. Then molecules formed from those atoms after supernovas ejected them out to space. Then planets formed, etc, etc, etc. Life is essentially a very complex, self catalysing chemical reaction.

 

[P A]

rangrz, fixingahole is renowned (here and elsewhere) as a profligate troll. Don't waste your time.

 

[P A]

PA: Scientific theory is not without error. No scientist has the time to go back and verify every single experiment and probe it further, they take the foundation of their knowledge in assumption and good faith. Of course a lot of the stuff is completely valid and good science, but we're only human.. sometimes things are missed in experiments or calculations, and if theory is built upon prior theory that is incomplete or partially incorrect then you can end up going in the wrong direction. And this is just human error.. factor in corruption, money, politics, etc.. science is not immune from this. That's all I'm saying.

Maybe that's what you're saying now, but no more than ten posts upthread, the topic was the relative theoretical strength of neo-Darwinism, which ranks amongst the most empirically well-established and fruitful bodies of scientific literature to date. Few biologists would claim otherwise - and since, almost by definition, biologists have far and away more formal training in the field of biology than the average citizen, I'm going to go ahead and put my lot in with their (viz., the 99.5% of biologists who are unambiguous neo-Darwinians) collective opinion on the matter, thank you very much. Mind you, this is not an argument from authority - it's an argument from probability. Dollars to donuts, who is more likely to have a greater amount of insight re. all matters biological: A biologist, or, more accurately, the entire biological community? Or someone on the internet?

 

[-=SS=-]

If you want to go with probability that's your decision, but mass consensus hasn't always worked.. that's the probability I'm betting on

 

[P A]

If you want to go with probability that's your decision, but mass consensus hasn't always worked.. that's the probability I'm betting on

Reread my post: My unwillingness to concede your skepticism is not warranted by 'mass consensus,' as evolutionary biologists do not constitute a majority population of any kind. Rather, it's a matter of the relative trustworthiness of sources - a judgment call that you, I'm sure, make every day as well, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. Having passingly familiarized myself with some (neo-)Darwinian theory (BIO101, bits and pieces of Origin, Dawkins, Gould, &c.), I'm inclined to side with the professionals' take on this theory because A) You have not presented a superior alternative, in terms of explanatory power, empirical verifiability, or in any sense; and B) To the best of my knowledge, you are not a professional working in the field of which Darwinian theory is a part, making you an amateur commentator at best (which significantly decreases the probability that your commentary is anything other than inane intarwebz chatter). In this sense, my thinking is utterly un-democratic, as it very well should be - we're talking about the veracity of an empirically verifiable explanation of a natural phenomenon, not some abstruse metaphysical proposition that is to be accepted or denied by fiat.

 

[yougene]

I'm going to go ahead and put my lot in with their (viz., the 99.5% of biologists who are unambiguous neo-Darwinians) collective opinion on the matter, thank you very much. Mind you, this is not an argument from authority - it's an argument from probability. Dollars to donuts, who is more likely to have a greater amount of insight re. all matters biological: A biologist, or, more accurately, the entire biological community? Or someone on the internet?

99.5% of biologists aren't "neo-darwinists". Especially when talking about biologists that have to think with precision in regard to evolutionary processes(e.g molecular biologists). You use Gould as an example of "neo-darwinists" from which you draw your conclusions yet he is the poster child of alternative theories.

 

[P A]

99.5% of biologists aren't "neo-darwinists"

I was (technically incorrectly) using neo-Darwinism as a synonym for 'modern evolutionary synthesis' in reflection of common usage. Only a pedant would bother to point out such a hairsplitting distinction. And, to be completely honest, I used that absurd confidence interval because I truly do not know what proportion of biologists adhere to one explanatory model or the other; but, from what little I've read, I gather that the MES/neo-Darwinian synthesis model is the most commonly accepted one of its kind. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

You use Gould as an example of "neo-darwinists" from which you draw your conclusions yet he is the poster child of alternative theories.

No, I don't. [Take note of the judicious parentheses]

 

[-=SS=-]

NASA Voyager 1 Encounters New Region in Deep Space
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2012-381#5

"Scientists refer to this new region as a magnetic highway for charged particles because our sun's magnetic field lines are connected to interstellar magnetic field lines. This connection allows lower-energy charged particles that originate from inside our heliosphere -- or the bubble of charged particles the sun blows around itself -- to zoom out and allows higher-energy particles from outside to stream in. Before entering this region, the charged particles bounced around in all directions, as if trapped on local roads inside the heliosphere."

Voyager 1 Mystery — Solar Wind Ceases
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/10/30/voyager-1-mystery-solar-wind-ceases/

 

[rangrz]

Yes, as I said, mainstream physics/astronomy/cosmology do not in any sense say electromagnetic forces are not important in stellar models.

They do say however gravity is important to overcome the columb barrier for stellar fusion to occur.

 

[-=SS=-]

Voyager 1 Confirms Electric Heliosphere
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7dwhAWESz8

 

[Hanniba1]

Hmmmmm, well I have mixed opinions on this one. I've read numerous essays, watched various documentaries, etc. While in a perfect world this would be ideal for us to advance with technological progress. Alas, there is just so much things that have to come into play before this is even an option. I definitely don't think we're all just going to experience some advance in technology and live happily ever after. There are dystopian societys in which will arise after such a change in humanity. There is so much corruption, greed and tyranny in our world that this working smoothly is a pipe-dream. We're going to learn a lot over the next year: both technologically and economically. We're in a time of economic crisis and here we are discussing how we're going to merge with technology within the next 20 years? I really think there is a lot of stuff that humanity must figure out before this is even a plausible idea. While it's nice to think we're going to experience the singularity it'll be hard for humanity as a whole to get there.

 

[rangrz]

Voyager 1 Confirms Electric Heliosphere
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7dwhAWESz8

K, what's your point. The heliosphere has been known to be electrically charged for ages.

Indeed fusion kind of implies that, as it will result it fiercely intense gamma radiation that will ionize the shit out of atoms and thus give us a lot of free protons and electrons blowing around.

 

[-=SS=-]

K, what's your point. The heliosphere has been known to be electrically charged for ages.

Indeed fusion kind of implies that, as it will result it fiercely intense gamma radiation that will ionize the shit out of atoms and thus give us a lot of free protons and electrons blowing around.

If you spare 20 minutes you can get a much more thorough explanation than I can afford you.

 

[rangrz]

Do you have link to a NASA source with text? It's a pain to watch videos on my phone.

I want NASAsource to assure its not a crank writing it.