changin' ur genes

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by gamelord, Jun 6, 2018.

  1. globali Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    157
    You are just misinterpreting the real macroscopic impact of these phenomena. No one said that quantum phenomena don't happen. Their macroscopic impact though is limited. If you flip a coin once you will get either head or tails. If you flip it 10 thousand times, you will get a predictable result (tails almost 50% of cases)
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,276

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I see eight triangles and three pac-mans, set in a square.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2019
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,108
    You're talking about diamonds. Which has nothing to do with your thesis (or so you say).

    W: "So, you can see that these faux diamonds have a clarity that..."
    D: "Wait: you're saying those are diamonds"?
    W: "No, they're faux diamonds."
    D: "Is this lesson about diamonds"?
    W: "No."
    D: "Well, what is it about then?"
    W: "Well, things that are diamond-like, but not diamonds, I guess."
    D: "Like what things? What is this lesson actually about?"
    W: "Er."
    D: "Would Cubic Zirconia be a contender?"
    W: "Well, sure but..."
    D: "Is that Cubic Zirconia?"
    W: "Well yes, but I really want to draw your attention to the fact that this is about..."
    D: "Diamonds?"
    W: "You're complaining about me not dotting my i's."
    D: "Why do you keep talking about diamonds if this lesson isn't about diamonds?"
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,108
    Yup. That's called paredolia.

    You are interpreting things that aren't actually there, and drawing false conclusions of the real world, based on your need to find pattern. Sometimes there is no pattern.
     
  8. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,276
    Except for chaos there is always a pattern. That is the point Tegmark makes in his hypothesis of a mathematical universe.

    p.s. and according to chaos theory, chaos itself contains hidden patterns
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

    Kinda like what I have been talking about, no?
     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,276
    You do realize this entire exercise is of your construction. Yet you assign authorship to me. That's duplicitous.
     
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,108
    No.

    You drew the connection between intelligence and diamonds. You brought the analogy to the table.


    You posted it then you removed it - but not before I quoted you, here:

    Admit that you posted it and then deleted it.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2019
    Write4U likes this.
  11. globali Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    157
    The more complex and chaotic a system is, the more difficult it is to make accurate predictions.

    The more complex and chaotic a system is, the more likely for paredolia to occur. The fact that flower leaves look like fractals doesn't mean that leaves are fractals.
     
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,276
    It means that fractals are patterns and self-similar patterns are fractals. Cell division is a fractal function.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal

    Are you beginning to see the reason why I look for "common denominators" in universal phenomena?
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2019
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,276
    Yes I did and I'll tell you why I decided to delete it.
    I deleted it, because I fully expected you to say that a faux diamond is an example of ID and that therefore I was again advocating for intelligent design. Can't win for losing.

    Of course my original attempt was to draw a distinction between a naturally emergent crystal form and an artificially created crystal form.




     
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,108
    Which is fine, but it puts the lie to this:
    This displeases me, because it reads rather dishonestly - as if you're pretending I made it up.



    Heh. I did not read nearly that much into it.
    I did not think beyond an example of a qualifying word: faux/quasi/pseudo.

    I thought you were simply saying any qualifier added to a word changes the word. So a faux X is not an X.
    (To which I replied that you were missing the point.)
     
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,276
    Well, OK. My bad. But you can see why I tried to delete it before it was placed as an example of my willful adherence to the concept of ID.

    This is what I have been trying to say, that these semantic arguments ALWAYS end up in a hopeless stalemate, stifling the free flow of information and completely drifting away from the original focus.

    I did not do this to mislead. I was just tired of going back over and over again to see who said what, when, and in what context.

    I just got tired of climbing hills to make a simple point.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2019
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,276
    Except quasi does not belong in that group. That is why I asked that only the term "quasi" be used as it describes accurately what I was intending to convey.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2019
  17. globali Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    157
    Imagine hundred of birds flying in a flock. While they are flying, you start seeing them making crazy shapes and you are amazed. What do you think. That something ordered is created in these shapes, real substance, or it is just your paredolia?

    What? Cell division is a fractal function?lol. Why? Because they are repeatable phenomena? So the planets orbiting the sun are fractals? If you visit Jupiter's moons, you will see similar things in their surface now, compared to 10 or 50 or 100 years ago. Chemical reactions are happening all the time, yet you see always the same thing. Does this mean that chemistry in the surface of these planets are fractals?

    Periodicity happens all the time and results from the fact that similar substances under the same laws of nature will undergo similar events all the time. And similar events under similar laws of nature will pose similar results. Periodicity happens all the time. It is not a property of chaos. In fact, the more complex a system is, the more likely that it wont be repeatable. Although within the complex systems you might see some patterns, this is more likely to be paredolia than real periodicity, as exact predictive mathematical measurements will become increasingly more challenging and elusive. Now some complex mathematical systems might be periodic, but this is not a result of the complexity per se.

    The mathematics to explain a system must be exact. They should not be valid "approximately". Some simple phenomena can be nicely explained mathematically, like for example E=mc^2. The more complex the system, like for example meteorology, the more mathematics seem to do a less good gob. And then you have biology which is orders of magnitude more complex than meteorology, and we are constantly discovering new layers of complexity, that we didn't know.
    Fractals are mathematical constructions. To say that cell division is a fractal is absurd, because it means that every interaction is modeled by a mathematical symbol and then the calculations lead to a fractal-like function. For example, during translation, the DNA molecule takes a certain spatial conformation, that resemble a "S". Then according to the genes that are on the edge of that S, and some distant regulatory parts that attach to that region due to the now spatial proximity they come because of the twisted DNA molecule, determines which protein will be encoded. How can you model that in mathematical terms? Or how can you model the effects of the dynamic tension that external forces bring to the cytoskeleton. And i can go on and on for hours, giving examples on why it is currently so difficult to mathematically model biological functions, and claim that cell division is a fractal. Maybe in the future.

    You seem to mix up fringe ideas, like some pure mathematical or physical models like quantum mechanics or chaos theory can be expanded into every aspect of reality, without palatable evidence that this is the case. This means that you are gullible to hyped claims....and this leads to an explosive mixture of ideas
     
  18. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,108
    I see that, yes.

    BTW, I don't think you're willfully adhering to ID. i.e. I don't think you think of yourself as an ID proponent.
    I simply think you don't see how close your idea is to that of ID. The difference is too subtle to see for anybody but you.
     
    globali likes this.
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,276
    Aerodynamics.
    False analogy. Fractals are not reactions, fractals are patterns.
    Right, that confirms the mathematical nature of natural pattern formation.
    I did not claim that.
    I never claimed that patterns are a result of complexity. You go argue with Chaos theorists.
    Right, but none of it negates the fundamental law that E = Mc^2.
    And here we arrive at David Bohm. Bohm's main objection to the standard model was that science picks apart every aspect of the universe, until things are so far removed from each other that one can no longer find any common denominators and we end up with paradoxes like GR and QM.

    Bohm wrote a whole book on that very problem; "Wholeness and the Implicate Order"
    http://www.gci.org.uk/Documents/DavidBohm-WholenessAndTheImplicateOrder.pdf
    Interestingly, these ideas are not mine, but are formally presented by recognized scientists, physicists, mathematicians, in colleges such as Carnegie Institute for the Sciences, the Royal Academy of Sciences, Harvard, Yale, etc, etc.

    And you declare these institutions are unable to tell tell the difference between good theoretical science and crack pottery? Our scientific world must be in a dismal state of confusion then.
    =========================
    p.s. Bohm was somewhat of a mystic and I am not in a position to judge that part f his mind-set. But I do know that Einstein was a good friend and greatly respected Bohm's scientific insights.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2019
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,276
    Correct!
    I see the difference only in the distiction between a fundamental ability of universal potentials to be able to spotaneously emerge (become explicated) from chaos, and the religious perspective that it requires a motivated intelligent entity, an external agent who "designed it all" or else nothing would exist.

    The only difference lies in a universe which functions in a natural "quasi-intelligent mathematical manner" and a "motivated intentional designer" (the hand of God), a concept which I reject utterly.

    And IMO, that makes ALL the difference.........
     
  21. pluto2 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    900
    Yes there is a hard line in my opinion.

    Most girls are not attracted to very ugly men and if you are superugly like me then you can obviously forget about the girls because I think I stand no chance with them whatsoever.
     
  22. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,276
    I feel that I left this unresolved and I want to offer a perfect example of what I mean with a universe which functions in an inherent quasi-intelligent manner rather than from an external motivated creator.

    I have posted this elsewhere, but it offers such a beautiful example of natural mathematical potential inherent in even the smallest (earliest) organisms that it certainly applies to this conversation on genetics and illustrates how physical chemical properties of single celled bacteria allows for "quorum sensing" an inherent bacterial mathematical "counting ability"!!! And the resulting quasi-intelligence which may well be the evolutionary proto-model of true intelligence .

    If you have not yet seen this I urge you give this close attention, and if you have seen it, it bears repeated viewing.
    It is truly revelatory.

     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2019 at 12:44 AM
  23. pluto2 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    900
    There are tons of things we don't know yet about life and the human body.

    We still don't know why some people experience very severe pain even after a small injury while other people are apparently very resistant to pain, even after a big injury.

    The experience of pain after injury and why it differs so much between people (like I said, I am convinced that some people feel almost no pain even after big injuries) is still a mystery but scientists HAVE to figure it out if we want to make life better for everyone.

    Severe pain and avoidance of injuries can completely destroy someone's quality of life.

    I mean if severe pain after injury is really beneficial for us evolutionarily speaking then why do some people really go into extreme measures to get rid of it?
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2019 at 4:58 PM

Share This Page