The problem of Self-Referential systems

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Write4U, Jun 30, 2021.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    It depends on the application of the concept of time, as explained by Einstein.
    Yes, and there are several interpretations, depending on the application of the concept.
    I don't. I make it non-existent until there is a duration of change or physical existence. How much simpler can be?
    No change, no time. No continued existence, no time.
    That's why Einstein placed it under the laws of Relativity. It's a relational measurement.
    Where does it say that? Prove it. Making declarative statements without evidence is not the scientific way.
    I know the bible says that belief in God will solve all of humanity's problems and I can prove that. Of course, it doesn't seem to have done anything to solve humanity's problems, and we can prove that also.
    You have completely misunderstood the thrust of the argument. Let's examine the facts. Eldredge and Tattersall do not deny evolution, quite the opposite, they claim evolution is more complicated than the fundamental claim of Darwinian evolution via natural selection. They propose there are other factors involved, but never disavow Darwinian Evolution.
    From wiki:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_evolutionary_synthesis

    If we go back far enough, the fossil record also shows that you have no ancestors. Yet here you are! Can you prove that you had ancestors? There is no fossil record of your tribe beyond a few generations. Maybe, if we're lucky we might find a 10,000 year old fossil with some of your DNA and you can claim there is proof that you exist because you have a fossil record of your ancestors... won't that be neat!
    Yes!!!!!
    Evolution is not a belief system. It is a demonstrated axiomatic process and there is no lack of evidence. That assumption is false indoctrination. There is overwhelming evidence, but the questioners ignore the evidence and only focus on a few gaps in the scientific knowledge. They are the indoctrinated ones. They are ignorant of the existing facts.

    This is the origin of the scientific observation that "God is only a God of the gaps in the scientific record".
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2021
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. phyti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    680
    Write4U;

    The clock is ticking continuously, accumulating time, even when you aren't aware of any change, like when asleep, or in a coma.
    All measurements are relational, comparing something to a standard.

    Einstein replaced universal time with subjective/observer time, based on finite light speed. Applied time is the same around the world, especially for global travel. NIST supplies the world with a global time standard.

    It requires a male and female human to produce another human.
    What is the origin of the first pair?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    Clocks are ticking because they continue to exist and count duration in arbitrary units.
    No it isn't. We have arbitrarily established Greenwich as the "mean earth time" reference.

    Europe

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Time in Europe
    :
    Western European Time / Greenwich Mean Time (UTC)
    Western European Time / Greenwich Mean Time (UTC)
    Western European Summer Time / British Summer Time / Irish Standard Time (UTC+1)
    Central European Time (UTC+1)
    Central European Summer Time (UTC+2)
    Eastern European Time / Kaliningrad Time (UTC+2)
    Eastern European Time (UTC+2)
    Eastern European Summer Time (UTC+3)
    Moscow Time / Turkey Time (UTC+3)
    pale colours indicate where standard time is observed all year; dark colours indicate where a summer time is observed
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_the_United_Kingdom#

    World

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    https://www.worldclock.com/time-zone-map/

    It's all relative to worldtime coordinates within the greater spacetime coordinates. And it only counts duration of earth's existence. If the earth were to be destroyed by a comet, end of worldtime coordinates and map.

    There is no time in the future. There is not even a guarantee of future time.
    That's not true at all. It started as asexual (1 parent) reproduction and sexual (2 parent) reproduction came later, via natural selection.
    It requires male and female to introduce variety, but there are several species of organisms that reproduce without males. see next page.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    That's true for humans, but we are not the only species around. There are many species that do not procreate sexually.


    ANIMALS THAT DON'T HAVE A MALE FOR REPRODUCTION

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Self-Fertilizing Sharks
    Budding for Babies
    Self-Sexing Insects
    Immaculate Reptile Conception
    Advanced Avian Parthenogenesis
    https://animals.mom.com/animals-dont-male-reproduction-9838.html

    The Silvery Salamander mates with a male but rejects his sperm. The female has fully formed double helix of her own DNA and the act of mating triggers mitosis. As a result all her offspring are female and clones of the mother.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvery_salamander

    A perfect example of primitive self-referential organisms.

    It ain't Adam and Eve. That is just an allegorical myth. Male female mating can be observed in Paramecium a single celled organism.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    https://www.toppr.com/ask/question/which-of-the-following-results-from-conjugation-in-paramecium/

    There is your Adam and Eve.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The Evolution of Sex
    https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/mating-systems-in-sexual-animals-83033427/

    IMO, asexual reproduction must have been the first method of reproduction, but apparently the first diploid sexuality appeared fairly early in the evolution of more complex organisms.

    Prokaryotic Reproduction
    https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_and_General_Biology/Book:_General_Biology_(Boundless)/22:_Prokaryotes:_Bacteria_and_Archaea/22.2:_Structure_of_Prokaryotes/22.2B:_Prokaryotic_Reproduction#.

    There seem to be some leftovers Prokaryote processes in this age of the Eukaryotes.

    This does present an interesting question about "immaculate conception". Might a female human be able to produce offspring without the assist of a male?
    The answer still is not applicable to the biblical account. If Mary had experienced immaculate conception (without the assistance of male sperm) Jesus would have been female and a clone of Mary.

     
    Last edited: Aug 4, 2021
  8. phyti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    680
    You still don't understand.
    You make unjustified assumptions, implying the poster is ignorant.
    Eg. I didn't say human reproduction was the only means.
    Darwin believed in God, and as a self appointed spokesman, decided he would fill in the details of creation of life forms.
    He wasn't there, how would he know?
    It'a all speculation. Neither he, nor you, nor anyone working in the fields relating to the subject, have any evidence of intermediate species. There is variation everywhere in the world., from a stone to a butterfly.
    The average person would not write a book explaining brain surgery not knowing anything about it.
     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    Ignorant of what? Don't just say that. Give me facts?
    And you, as believer and self-appointed spokesman for God, can tell me the details of Abiogenesis?
    He was there and then he knew!
    And everything in between, no?
    You cannot disprove something by confirming it. Intermediate species are everywhere. Life does not deliver a finished product. You and I and everything else are intermediate forms of our species, be they bacterial or mammal. Just look at the variety of intermediate hominids that are now extinct, and for which we do have fossil records.
    Just look at the fossils of thousands of species (some extant, some extinct). Why do you refuse to look and draw logical inferences.

    You ignore the enormous timelines we are dealing with. Of course there are gaps. If you bury a steak, how long does it take before it has disintegrated completely and there is no trace left of that steak. Does that mean there never was a steak? Bury that steak in some cement and a million years later you may find a bone, proving there was a steak. And from the bone's DNA, you can determine what animal it came from.

    The basic DNA structure provides the blueprint of the species, but there are very few clones (identical copies), the rest are intermediate forms. When you see variety, you are looking at intermediate forms.

    Origins of Humankind
    Fossils Reveal the Story of Our Relatives
    But fossils are often difficult to categorize neatly as one species or another.
    Like all creatures, no two individual hominids were alike. And over the millions of years most of the species existed, hominids changed; they evolved; some diverged and became new species.[/quote] This is the story of our distant relatives, as told by the fossil record.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    A - Orrorin tugenensis (6 mya)
    B - Ardipithecus ramidus (4.4 mya)
    C - Australopithecus anamensis (4.2 to 3.9 mya)
    D - Australopithecus afarensis (3.6 to 2.9 mya)
    E - Kenyanthropus platyops (3.5 to 3.3 mya)
    F - Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 mya)
    G - Australopithecus aethiopicus (2.7 to 2.3 mya)
    H - Australopithecus garhi (2.5 mya)
    I - Australopithecus boisei (2.3 to 1.4 mya)
    J - Homo habilis (2.3 to 1.6 mya)
    K - Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 mya)
    L - Australopithecus robustus (1.8 to 1.5 mya)
    M - Homo heidelbergensis (600 to 100 tya)
    N - Homo neanderthalensis (250 to 30 tya)
    O - Homo sapiens (100 tya to present)
    mya = millions of years ago tya = thousands of years ago

    The Hominid Family Tree
    -> Learn about the fossilized evidence of our fellow hominids

    https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/humans/humankind/low_bandwidth.html
    Exactly, the average theist should not write a book explaining science, not knowing anything about it.
    You can make all the grandiose statements you like. Theist creationists know much less about biology than scientific Biologists. Why do you reject their knowledge and insist that your ignorance (no offense) is more authoritative than theirs?

    If you agree that there is no evidence of "irreducible complexity", then you must also agree with the implication that every extant individual organism itself is an example of an evolutionary intermediate form. This evolution thing just keeps rolling along. There is no finished product anywhere. And even if there is, then a single unfortunate event may bring about the extinction of a whole evolutionary line.

    The butterfly effect applies to everything going forward or backward. It's a self-referential mathematical algorithm (an equation).
     
  10. phyti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    680
    Write4U

    Of whatever you post from all your sources. Do you think other people don't do research?

    [/quote]
    And you, as believer and self-appointed spokesman for God, can tell me the details of Abiogenesis? [/quote]

    There you go, putting up words that were never posted. We are born into the world totally ignorant of what it is, why were are here, etc. We only know what is revealed to us, which includes our ability to analyze our world for the purpose of understanding.
    It's a contradiction that Darwin was a theist, yet didn't think a supreme being could create life forms that are fully functional and autonomous. Very presumptuous.
    If God had explained the details of forming a universe and life forms, no one, including Darwin would have understood. The human has limited ability. The watchmaker is greater than the watch. We don't need to know the details to live a contented life, just good rules of conduct.

    Possible since the DNA corresponds to a specific species.

    Genetic code has been copied billions of times producing the same species. Variety is not intermediate forms. All colored roses are still roses. People around the world vary in physical characteristics, yet remain human. Variety is the norm.
    Intermediate forms are the proposed transitional stages like ape to man, etc.
    As the fossil record shows, species enter and leave the world unchanged.
    The thalidomide babies were born without extremities, fingers, toes, due to chemical interference from the medications prescribed. Their DNA was not altered.

    Hitler and his organization killed millions of people.
    The nuclear bomb on Hiroshima killed millions of people.
    The 2011 tsunami in Japan killed approx 16000 people.
    The 2020 covid virus has killed over 1/2 million people, and still going.
    That's a short list! None of those were natural selection.
     
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    OK, no facts.
    I just gave you an example of what you posted about Darwin.
    Not really, we have some 4.5 billions years of evolution in our collective memory. And when we grow up we have the ability to observe, measure, analyze, test, model, and duplicate how things work. Nothing extraordinary is required to make it all work. So, you are wrong in the assumption that God is a necessary agent to make it work. God is a human invention and superfluous to the Universe. If man becomes extinct there will be no one that believes in a god! But will the Universe end at that point. Of course not. Gods exist only in the mind, not in spacetime.
    That is illogical. Darwin believed in God as a universal a priori creative force. He just didn't think God was necessary for evolution of species, which is true. We don't need God to breed a prize bull from successive artificial selection for desirable traits. It's all right in front of you, but you refuse to acknowledge facts.
    Darwin did in fact understand how evolution via natural selection happens. If I believed in God I would advance the idea that God found the perfect method of creating a self-improving system of natural selection for beneficial survival techniques.
    That's a contradictory statement. Humans are greater than the sum of its biome. Nature is the ultimate mathematical watchmaker
    I disagree, we need to know details in order to make good rules of conduct. All of biological history can attest to that fact. It is the evolutionary system which works in several ways, but statistically selects for greatest survivability.
    How is it that we have DNA from Neanderthals in our DNA? How is it that All great apes share some 98 % same DNA? It is that 2% that makes the difference. Now do you understand that new species usually require only a minor change in DNA to acquire whole new growth patterns.
    Again, you fail to see that sufficient variety of long periods of time may result in significant distinctive features and properties, worthy of a new name (specie).
    And we have sufficient fossil records to show the evolution and speciation of the hominids. See Post #106. Again you overlook the obvious.
    That statement proves nothing. In fact it is wrong. Individuals enter and leave the world unchanged. Species change with every generation.
    Oh yes it was. Do your research. I've done enough research for you to fill a college course.
    http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/thalidomide/effects.html
    Of course it is! Again, you talk about the supernatural grandeur of God, and you completely box yourself in when considering how Nature finds expression, from evolutionary processes such as Abiogenesis to devolutionary processes like Genocide. It's all natural and as such is part of the natural selection process, by any means or cause.
     
  12. Beaconator Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,431
    Probably an amoeba shitting it’s nucleus into another.
     
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,777
    In the same organism.

    Genome study reveals how green algal species became hermaphrodite
    Overview of the press release

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Female sexual spheroids and an asexual spheroid of Volvox reticuliferus. Photo by Hisayoshi Nozaki.

    https://www.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/en/info/7378/
     

Share This Page