Write4U's wobbly world of word salad woo

[James R]

What if something evolves and is naturally selected because it has purpose and gives an adavantage to the possessing "pattern".

Nothing is selected in evolution "because it has purpose".

Purpose implies that there is a plan made in advance, with an end goal in somebody's mind.

Evolution lacks plans and end goals.

 

[Write4U]

Nothing is selected in evolution because it has purpose.

Not directly, but:
Copilot:

Adaptations are unique characteristics that allow animals to survive and reproduce in their environment135.
The purpose of adaptation is a central achievement of Darwinism2.

Purpose implies that there is a plan made in advanced, with an end goal in somebody's mind
Not necessarily. It can be the result of a predictable probability. IOW, if a thing evolves and that evolution fills a purpose, it is a stochastic result.

The purpose of adaptation​

PMCID: PMC5566815 PMID: 28839927

Abstract​

A central feature of Darwin's theory of natural selection is that it explains the purpose of biological adaptation. Here, I: emphasize the scientific importance of understanding what adaptations are for, in terms of facilitating the derivation of empirically testable predictions; discuss the population genetical basis for Darwin's theory of the purpose of adaptation, with reference to Fisher's ‘fundamental theorem of natural selection'; and show that a deeper understanding of the purpose of adaptation is achieved in the context of social evolution, with reference to inclusive fitness and superorganisms.

The purpose of adaptation - PMC

A central feature of Darwin's theory of natural selection is that it explains the purpose of biological adaptation. Here, I: emphasize the scientific importance of understanding what adaptations are for, in terms of facilitating the derivation of ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

and

The Future of Evolution​

Noble is part of The Third Way, a movement in evolutionary biology that views natural selection as part of a holistic, organism-centered process. He co-authored Evolution “on Purpose," published by MIT Press in 2023, which argues that organisms evolve with intention.

Recent research calls into question whether genetic mutations are even entirely random. A 2022 study in Nature shows a mutation bias supporting the organism as a whole. Noble doesn’t understand why studies like these aren’t making bigger waves. “Do you, you people working in gene-centric biology, do you realize what has already been published?” asks an incredulous Noble.

These articles corroborate the general theme that Genes Are Not The Blueprint For Life, the title of Noble’s review in the journal Nature, heralding science writer Philip Ball’s primer How Life Works: A User’s Guide to The New Biology. Ball, a former editor of Nature, admonishes the life sciences for ignoring obvious natural properties of living systems like agency and purpose because of “quasi-mystical” associations with intelligent design. In the book, Ball illustrates the resistance to letting go of the “tidy tale” of gene-centrism and the idea that genes control health more than “‘a bit’ and ‘somewhat’.” Like Noble, Ball is advocating for a new biology.

Xavier has identified another form of intention at the cellular level of emergent systems: cooperation. She doesn’t understand why it’s acceptable to think of evolution as competitive but evidence of cooperation is considered taboo. “I think to solve life's origins, we'll need to look much more at cooperation. And emergence really brings cooperation into the scene, whether you want it or not,” says Xavier, who also sees creativity as fundamental to life. “It's so obvious, you either accept that it is true that life is creative or you don't.”

more... https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrea...e-purposeful-and-its-freaking-scientists-out/

Note that in my small way, I am defending this in (background) support of Hazen and the new hypothesis of "increased functional information", that caused this response:

"The team's notion of **fitness beyond biology** is "really subtle, complex and wonderful," Stuart Kauffman adds.

Copilot:

Stuart Alan Kauffman is an American medical doctor, theoretical biologist, and complex systems researcher1. He studies the origin of life on Earth1. Kauffman's work has revealed how natural selection, working with random mutation, can give rise to adaptive and complex organisms2. He developed the Kauffman models, which are random networks exhibiting self-organization3.

Is purpose an emergent property of complexity?

 

[exchemist]

It has always struck me as an organisation that has certain agendas that are questionable. It's a bit of a mixed bag, but judge for yourself.

It's worth taking a look at the Wikipedia article on the Templeton Foundation.

Some key points follow. All of what follows is quoted from wikipedia:
---

The foundation administers the annual Templeton Prize for achievements in the field of spirituality, including those at the intersection of science and religion. It has an extensive grant-funding program (around $150 million per year as of 2016) aimed at supporting research in physics, biology, psychology, and the social sciences as well as philosophy and theology. It also supports programs related to genetics, "exceptional cognitive talent and genius" and "individual freedom and free markets". The foundation receives both praise and criticism for its awards, regarding the breadth of its coverage, and ideological perspectives asserted to be associated with them.

...​

The Templeton Prize was established by John Templeton and he administered the prize until the foundation was established in 1987, which took it over The prize has "a value of about $1.7 million, making it one of the world’s largest annual awards given to an individual".

The early prizes were given solely to people who had made great achievements in the field of religion; Mother Teresa received the inaugural award in 1973, with other early winners including Sir Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, Chiara Lubich (1977), and Nikkyō Niwano (1979). In the 1980s, John Templeton began considering the intersection of science and religion, and after he appointed two scientists to the judging panel, scientists who worked at the intersection began receiving it; Alister Hardy was the first, in 1987. More recent winners of the Templeton Prize have included the Dalai Lama in 2012, King Abdullah II of Jordan in 2018, Brazilian Jewish physicist and astronomer Marcelo Gleiser in 2019, and primatologist Jane Goodall in 2021.

... While most of its funding goes to topics in science, philosophy, and religion, around 40 percent of its annual grants go to character development, genius, freedom, free enterprise, and fields associated with classical liberalism. Grants are given to people across all religions since Templeton believed progress in the field of spirituality could come from anywhere. The field of grants was broadened in the 1980s to include scientific fields like neuroscience, psychology, and cosmology, seen as being aligned with the mission.

Some research programs supported by the foundation included the development of positive psychology by Martin Seligman, Angela Duckworth and others; the Black Hole Initiative at Harvard University; the Gen2Gen Encore Prize; the World Science Festival; Pew religious demographics surveys; and programs that engage with Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant traditions, including support for dialogue with scientists in synagogues, and a grant for advancing scientific literacy in madrasas.

....
The foundation has received both praise and criticism for its awards. The French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) has been critical of the foundation for funding "initiatives to bring science and religion closer together." Science journalist Chris Mooney, an atheist, received a 2010 Templeton-Cambridge Journalism Fellowship. In a 2010 article on his Discover magazine blog, Mooney wrote, "I can honestly say that I have found the lectures and presentations that we've heard here to be serious and stimulating. The same goes for the discussions that have followed them".

Some scholars have expressed concerns about the nature of the awards, research projects, and publications backed by the foundation. These concerns include questioning its integrity, cronyism, and its Templeton Freedom Awards. Journalist Sunny Bains pointed out in 2011 that Templeton Freedom Awards are administered by the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, a group that opposes taking action on climate change and defends the tobacco industry, which also gives the foundation funding.
....
Critics have asserted that the foundation has supported Christian-oriented research in the field of the scientific study of religions. Wired magazine noted in 1999 that "the scientific-review and grant-award process at the Templeton Foundation is run by Charles Harper, an Oxford-trained planetary scientist specializing in star and planet formation who has a degree in theology. Harper himself is an Evangelical Christian; the scientists who apply to the foundation for support, though, are not required to state their religious beliefs, or to have any."

In 2006, John Horgan, a 2005 Templeton-Cambridge fellow then working as a freelance science journalist, wrote in The Chronicle of Higher Education that he had enjoyed his fellowship, but felt guilty that by taking money from the foundation, he had contributed to the mingling of science with religion. Horgan stated "misgivings about the foundation's agenda of reconciling religion and science". He said that a conference he attended favored scientists who "offered a perspective clearly skewed in favor of religion and Christianity." Horgan fears recipients of large grants from the foundation sometimes write what the foundation wants rather than what they believe.

Richard Dawkins, in his 2006 book, The God Delusion, interprets Horgan as saying that "Templeton's money corrupts science", and characterizes the prize as going "usually to a scientist who is prepared to say something nice about religion".

Donald Wiebe, a scholar of religious studies at the University of Toronto, similarly criticized the foundation in a 2009 article entitled Religious Biases in Funding Religious Studies Research?. According to him, the foundation supports Christian bias in the field of religious studies, by deliberately imposing constraints to steer the results of the research.

Jerry Coyne, University of Chicago evolutionary biologist, told Nature writer Mitchell Waldrop that the foundation's purpose is to eliminate the wall between religion and science, and to use science's prestige to validate religion.

A 2007 article in the LA Times described the foundation as having "drawn criticism for its early support of intelligent design".

Some organizations funded by the foundation in the 1990s gave book-writing grants to Guillermo Gonzalez and to William Dembski, proponents of intelligent design who later joined the Discovery Institute. The foundation also gave money directly to the Discovery Institute which in turn passed it through to Baylor University, which used the funds to support Dembski's salary at its short-lived Michael Polanyi Center.

A number of journalists have highlighted connections with conservative causes.

Sociologist Robert Brulle listed the foundation as among the largest financial contributors to the climate change denial movement between 2003 and 2010.

Yes I read that before making the comment.

 

[Pinball1970]

Harper himself is an Evangelical Christian

Really!? I could not find anything on his wiki just lots of MIT. EDIT: Wrong guy, I was thinking Hazen

 

[exchemist]

Really!? I could not find anything on his wiki just lots of MIT. EDIT: Wrong guy, I was thinking Hazen

Yes the Templeton Foundation was set up by an evangelical who was interested in exploring the interface between religion and science. However it seems to have been far from a crank or creationist outfit. It has sponsored a lot of thoughtful work by proper scientists and philosophers. From what I have seen of it in the past it did not try to "spin" a particular religious line, so I've always regarded it as being, broadly speaking, what it says it is: a venue for exploring the interface.

At least, that is what it was, when I last encountered it. But that was over a decade ago I admit. I have to say I am slightly put off by their current website, which I have only just checked out, with its talk of "awe and wonder". That seems to me to be drifting away from serious intellectual enquiry and towards what one might term "charismatic woo". I see the Foundation is now in the hands of the granddaughter of the founder, John Templeton. So it has changed hands since I last checked it out.

It may be that it is becoming infantilised and degraded, under the malign influence of the US culture wars. Hmm.

 

[James R]

Purpose implies that there is a plan made in advanced, with an end goal in somebody's mind

Not necessarily. It can be the result of a predictable probability.

I disagree with you.

Note that in my small way, I am defending this in (background) support of Hazen and the new hypothesis of "increased functional information", that caused this response

Of course you are. You found it, so even if it's wrong you'll defend it. Think about it? Probably not. Defend it? Yes, poorly. For instance, you haven't been able to answer any of the questions I raised. I assume that's because you don't know the answers. Am I right?

 

[Pinball1970]

and this is STILL absolutely zero to do with a mathematical function, the origin of this second derivative, to a tangent on this latest digression.

 

[Write4U]

and this is STILL absolutely zero to do with a mathematical function, the origin of this second derivative, to a tangent on this latest digression.

Oh but I consider that a contradiction. You just used a mathematical expression to make an argument against maths..

But you may like this paper.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2008.0178

All these theories are always discussed in mathematical terms. Functions are mathematically ordered, results are physically expressed.
Bohm's Implicate and Explicate orders.
I just don't see the controversy, unless one only considers the human interpretation and codification of natural mathematics like predicting the probability of something happening the future, something the universe has no need of.

"Probability" is a mathematical term, because it describes a mathematically logical process. The concept of evolution rests in part on probability.

Probability is the branch of mathematics and statistics concerning events and numerical descriptions of how likely they are to occur. The probability of an event is a number between 0 and 1; the larger the probability, the more likely an event is to occur.[note 1][1][2]

Probability - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Write4U]

Of course you are. You found it, so even if it's wrong you'll defend it. Think about it? Probably not. Defend it? Yes, poorly. For instance, you haven't been able to answer any of the questions I raised. I assume that's because you don't know the answers. Am I right?

Where is it what I found wrong? Can you answer that question? I merely presented it because it looked interesting. Something new!

What question have you raised that I have not answered? Objections to the hypothesis are not questions that I am expected to answer. You are!

 

[Write4U]

Purpose implies that there is a plan made in advanced, with an end goal in somebody's mind.

Does a Venus Flytrap have a purpose? If it does, does it have a goal in mind or its purpose an evolved function.

Copilot:

The Venus Flytrap is a carnivorous plant native to the bogs of North and South Carolina. Its main purpose is to trap insects using mechanical action1234. The plant uses its leaves to capture prey and then digests it using enzymes secreted by glands located at the base of the leaf2.

 

[James R]

Where is it what I found wrong?

I didn't say it was wrong. I did say that you don't understand it. Prove me wrong.

I merely presented it because it looked interesting. Something new!

The fact remains that you are unable to explain what the hypothesis even is. It's just the latest pretty bauble that caught your eye.

What question have you raised that I have not answered?

All of the questions in post #554, for starters. Here's the link:

Write4U's wobbly world of word salad woo

....and it's not a mathematical function.

www.sciforums.com

I expect you will ignore this, just like you did last time. Or maybe you'll just forget it ever happened, again.

Objections to the hypothesis are not questions that I am expected to answer. You are!

Bizarre.

 

[James R]

You just used a mathematical expression to make an argument against maths.

Where did Pinball use a mathematical expression to make an argument against maths? Link please.

All these theories are always discussed in mathematical terms.

Which theories?

Functions are mathematically ordered, results are physically expressed.

In what way are functions "ordered"? Please explain.

In what sense do functions have "results"? Can you give me an example?

What does it mean for the result of a mathematical function to be "physically expressed"? How does that happen? How could it? [TWENTY-THREE?]

Bohm's Implicate and Explicate orders.

Buzz words. Invoking them at random does nothing.

I just don't see the controversy, unless one only considers the human interpretation and codification of natural mathematics like predicting the probability of something happening the future, something the universe has no need of.

I don't know what "controversy" you're referring to. But you mentioned "natural mathematics" again, and you have yet to show that's a real thing.

Are you ever going to attempt to do that?

"Probability" is a mathematical term, because it describes a mathematically logical process.

It's a mathematical term because it describes a mathematical calculation or estimate.

The concept of evolution rests in part on probability.

In the sense that probability and statistics are linked, certainly. So what?

 

[James R]

Does a Venus Flytrap have a purpose?

From whose perspective? Its? Yours? Mine? God's? Maths'? Copilot's?

Tell me what you mean when you think about the "purpose of a Venus flytrap".

Do you agree with Copilot's assessment of the "purpose"? If not, why quote it? If so, tell me why you think Copilot is correct.

If it does, does it have a goal in mind or its purpose an evolved function.

Do you think a Venus flytrap has a mind? If not, then presumably it can't have its own goals. Do you agree?

Maybe you have a goal in mind for the Venus flytrap (?)

What do you mean by "purpose", in this context? A purpose is usually the end-goal of a plan, isn't it?

Who's doing the planning, according to you? A plan needs a planner.

 

[exchemist]

Oh but I consider that a contradiction. You just used a mathematical expression to make an argument against maths..

But you may like this paper.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2008.0178

All these theories are always discussed in mathematical terms. Functions are mathematically ordered, results are physically expressed.
Bohm's Implicate and Explicate orders.
I just don't see the controversy, unless one only considers the human interpretation and codification of natural mathematics like predicting the probability of something happening the future, something the universe has no need of.

"Probability" is a mathematical term, because it describes a mathematically logical process. The concept of evolution rests in part on probability.

Probability - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Idiot.

 

[Write4U]

I did say that you don't understand it. Prove me wrong.

You are making the claim that I am wrong. The burden of proof is on you.

The fact remains that you are unable to explain what the hypothesis even is. It's just the latest pretty bauble that caught your eye.

From the ensuing conversation it is clear that no one here has a clear understanding of this "new" hypothesis, and that is to be expected. It's NEW!
But don't single me out for being unclear. That just plain hypocrisy.

Where did Pinball use a mathematical expression to make an argument against maths? Link please.

here, on this forum.

and this is STILL absolutely zero to do with a mathematical function, the origin of this second derivative, to a tangent on this latest digression.

This is a mathematical expression using numbers, equations, and geometry to describe an event.

In what way are functions "ordered"? Please explain.

We can copy them in a lab using the proper mathematical formulas. That is proof of the effectiveness of mathematics. It makes everything orderly and repeatable.

In what sense do functions have "results"? Can you give me an example?

In what sense do functions have "results"? Can you give me an example = 0 ......

What does it mean for the result of a mathematical function to be "physically expressed"? How does that happen? How could it? [TWENTY-THREE?]

This:
"What does it mean for the result of a mathematical function to be "physically expressed"? How does that happen? How could it?
Here: "[TWENTY-THREE?]"

From whose perspective? Its? Yours? Mine? God's? Maths'? Copilot's?

You don't get to make that question, I do. You are supposed to have the answer.! You are the scientist.

Do you think a Venus flytrap has a mind? If not, then presumably it can't have its own goals. Do you agree?
Maybe you have a goal in mind for the Venus flytrap (?)
What do you mean by "purpose", in this context? A purpose is usually the end-goal of a plan, isn't it?
Who's doing the planning, according to you? A plan needs a planner.

No, determinism is a natural plan in and of itself.
Mathematics are the foundation of determinism.

In mathematics​

The systems studied in chaos theory are deterministic. If the initial state were known exactly, then the future state of such a system could theoretically be predicted. However, in practice, knowledge about the future state is limited by the precision with which the initial state can be measured, and chaotic systems are characterized by a strong dependence on the initial conditions. This sensitivity to initial conditions can be measured with Lyapunov exponents.

Markov chains and other random walks are not deterministic systems, because their development depends on random choices.

In mathematics, a random walk, sometimes known as a drunkard's walk, is a stochastic process that describes a path that consists of a succession of random steps on some mathematical space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterministic_system#In_mathematics

Space (mathematics)

In mathematics, a space is a set (sometimes known as a universe) endowed with a structure defining the relationships among the elements of the set. A subspace is a subset of the parent space which retains the same structure. While modern mathematics uses many types of spaces, such as Euclidean spaces, linear spaces, topological spaces, Hilbert spaces, or probability spaces, it does not define the notion of "space" itself.[1][a]

Space (mathematics) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Spacetime

In physics, spacetime, also called the space-time continuum, is a mathematical model that fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional continuum. Spacetime diagrams are useful in visualizing and understanding relativistic effects, such as how different observers perceive where and when events occur. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

What do you mean by "purpose", in this context? A purpose is usually the end-goal of a plan, isn't it?

Not necessessarily. It can be a deterministic goal, without a plan.

6.1 Representing States, Actions, and Goals

To reason about what to do, assume an agent has goals, a model of the environment, and a model of its actions.
A deterministic action is a partial function from states to states. It is partial because not every action is able to be carried out in every state.. The precondition of an action specifies when the action can be carried out. The effect of an action specifies the resulting state.

6.1 Representing States, Actions, and Goals ‣ Chapter 6 Deterministic Planning ‣ Artificial Intelligence: Foundations of Computational Agents, 3rd Edition

In this example the "agent" (guiding principle) can be a mathematical function.

Copilot:

In the context of mathematics, function rules serve as guiding principles that dictate how a function behaves3. These rules are essential for deciphering the language of mathematics and deepening understanding of mathematical concepts and procedures5.

Learn more:

In the vast and intricate world of mathematics, ‘function rules’ emerge as the guiding principles that dictate how a function behaves. These rules, often overlooked, hold a prominent position when it comes to deciphering the language of mathematics. Mastering these rules can pave the way to understanding more complex mathematical concepts, forming a solid foundation for advanced problem-solving.

What are Function Rules?

Function rules, also referred to as functional relationships, are equations that explicitly define the relationship between input values and output values. To put it in simpler terms, they dictate what happens when you input a value into a function, akin to a recipe that determines what comes out of the oven when you put in certain ingredients. Grasping function rules is like learning the syntax of a new language – it is the key to understanding and creating meaningful mathematical expressions. https://snapstudy.ai/content-academy/mastering-math-a-deep-dive-into-function-rules/

p.s. Copilot did refer to Sciforums.

After rereading this I liked Hal's post #7:

"As for Tegmark's position, it is one of several proposals of mathematical Platonism, and it is that very Platonism to which I object. My version of MUH is not one of platonism, but more of a relational view, and it is not presented at a level of an assertion, merely something that seems more plausible to me than any alternative I've found." https://www.sciforums.com/threads/tegmarks-mathematical-universe-hypothesis.166226/

 

[James R]

You are making the claim that I am wrong. The burden of proof is on you.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you the words of Write4U, as recorded in his many previous posts on sciforums! (Also, like I said before, I didn't say "wrong". I said you don't understand. There's ample evidence of that in your posts.)

From the ensuing conversation it is clear that no one here has a clear understanding of this "new" hypothesis, and that is to be expected. It's NEW!

Why do you think it's a good hypothesis, if you don't understand it?

But don't single me out for being unclear.

I didn't. I said that it's clear (from your posts) that you don't understand the hypothesis.

We can copy them in a lab using the proper mathematical formulas.

So you're saying that human beings are responsible for any "ordering" of mathematical functions. I agree with you.

This:
"What does it mean for the result of a mathematical function to be "physically expressed"? How does that happen? How could it?
Here: "[TWENTY-THREE?]"

A word salad non-answer. Count that as TWENTY-FOUR times you have failed to support your primary claim.

You don't get to make that question, I do. You are supposed to have the answer.! You are the scientist.

Okay. My answer is: the Venus flytrap doesn't have a purpose.

How's that?

No, determinism is a natural plan in and of itself.

plan. n. A series of steps to be carried out or goals to be accomplished.

Determinism isn't a plan. A plan requires a planner.

Mathematics are the foundation of determinism.

Of course not! How could it be? [TWENTY-FIVE]

In this example the "agent" (guiding principle) can be a mathematical function.

Mathematical functions aren't "agents". They lack agency.

 

[Write4U]

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you the words of Write4U, as recorded in his many previous posts on sciforums! (Also, like I said before, I didn't say "wrong". I said you don't understand. There's ample evidence of that in your posts.)

I meant to say "wrong", because if I am not wrong then clearly, I understand . It is therefore your burden to prove that I am "wrong"!

Just asserting that I do not understand is meaningless ad hominem.

A word salad non-answer. Count that as TWENTY-FOUR times you have failed to support your primary claim.

A mathematical statement.

Okay. My answer is: the Venus flytrap doesn't have a purpose.

Do you understand this sentence.

The Venus Flytrap is a carnivorous plant native to the bogs of North and South Carolina. Its main purpose is to trap insects using
mechanical action1234. The plant uses its leaves to capture prey and then digests it using enzymes secreted by glands located at the base of the leaf2.

A series of steps to be carried out or goals to be accomplished.

Yes, that's what determinism does, mindlessly. Bohm's Implicate order.

Mathematical functions aren't "agents". They lack agency.

A very limited perspective. Moreover, it is you who introduced the term "agency" as being necessary for "purpose", whereas I used the term "determinism" as sufficient to bestow purpose and as used by the quoted passage. .

Agency​

First published Mon Aug 10, 2015; substantive revision Mon Oct 28, 2019

In very general terms, an agent is a being with the capacity to act, and ‘agency’ denotes the exercise or manifestation of this capacity. The philosophy of action provides us with a standard conception and a standard theory of action.

The former construes action in terms of intentionality, the latter explains the intentionality of action in terms of causation by the agent’s mental states and events. From this, we obtain a standard conception and a standard theory of agency. There are alternative conceptions of agency, and it has been argued that the standard theory fails to capture agency (or distinctively human agency).

Further, it seems that genuine agency can be exhibited by beings that are not capable of intentional action, and it has been argued that agency can and should be explained without reference to causally efficacious mental states and events.

Agency (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Such as the Venus Flytrap, with the ability to capture prey via a mathematical (threshold) triggering equation.

The term agent is routinely used in chemistry .

In chemistry, an agent can refer to:

1. Chemical agent: Any chemical element or compound, whether naturally occurring or produced intentionally, used, or released in work activities1.
2. Reagent: A substance added to a system to cause a chemical reaction or test whether one has occurred23.

What are Chemicals Agents?​

Chemicals agents or chemicals are present in every workplace. For example, inks, toners, adhesives, paints, oils, lubricants, hair dye, laboratory reagents, welding fume, hazardous medicinal products and cleaning fluids are all examples of chemicals.

What are Chemicals Agents?

Chemicals agents or chemicals are present in every workplace. For example, inks, toners, adhesives, paints, oils, lubricants and cleaning fluids are all examples of chemicals.

www.hsa.ie

Oh James , what am I to do with you.

 

[Write4U]

I meant to say "wrong", because if I am not wrong then clearly, I understand . It is therefore your burden to prove that I am "wrong"!

Saying that I do not understand is just plain ad hominem.

 

[Pinball1970]

Saying that I do not understand is just plain ad hominem.

Write4U we are not trying to be nasty. Some of the technical terms you use are just not applicable.
These terms are very specific, science dictates that it is, so everyone sings from the same hymn sheet.
You have some really knowledgeable educated guys at your disposal and I am not including myself here.
My maths and physics formal education was very sparse at university, I studied applied Biology remember so a lot of that stuff is way above my head as well.

 

[Write4U]

Some of the technical terms you use are just not applicable.

Thanks Pinball for your input. I am well aware of my limited scientific terminology. But that has nothing to do with conceptual understanding.

I am not doing science, I don't want to do science. And this sub-forum is not for doing science. I am discussing new and/or controversial hypotheses in conversational terms, which I normally look up in the dictionary for general definitions that have a common denomination with the specialized scientific terms.

And my use of (technical) terms are always posited in their most generalized context . When I say "potential", I mean "that which may become expressed in reality" . When I say "function" it refers to ability to perform a specific pupose or role, nothing more, nothing less.
When I say "differential equation" or "difference equation", I use the terms in their most general context as it relates to differences (change) within systems.

Differential equations are used to model the dynamics of a system, representing its behavior using physics laws.
They are used to codify system dynamics (change) and steady state (rest) relational values.

Difference Equation vs. Differential Equation - What's the Difference? | This vs. That

What's the difference between Difference Equation and Differential Equation? Difference equations and differential equations are both mathematical tools used...

thisvsthat.io

Interestingly, you have shown a much better understanding and responses to the scientific limitations in my posit.
I have learned more from our communications in your relatively short time on this forum, than from years of prior and continuing ad hominem exclamations, without any constructive explanatory critiques which in a social sciences context might even be called an "abusive relationship".