The Science of Biological Evolution (no politics or religion) - Chess Forums - Page 2789

Elroch · 2015-03-07T11:45:05-08:00

This topic has been created in response to the closure of the previous one on this topic caused by people who ignored the ban on religion and politics in the Off Topic forum. To avoid this happening again, I regret to have to point out that anyone who does similarly in this thread will be permanentl

Anabel2015

21 days ago

0

#55761

Elroch, how do you know so much? Seeing that this whole thread started 11 yrs ago and that you still actively participate....... I was just reading through it all and got a lot of new knowledge. I do hope it never gets locked and that you may post for days and even years to come

playerafar

21 days ago

0

#55762

Elroch wrote:

playerafar wrote:

Elroch wrote:

Maths is utterly crucial to all sciences. It is the language needed to describe most knowledge.

Math is crucial to science yes.
But non-mathematical language is also critically necessary - and it and math are in a kind of symbiosis which doesn't always work out.
Regarding notions that every activity of every particle is predictable -
or every activity of every particle is not predictable ....
both notions would be false because of the word 'every' and false 'either or' dichotomoy.
'Some' is a much more realistic and applicable word in these contexts.
You seem to be making that up as you go along. Your words are incorrect in a key aspect. The "activity" of no particle is completely predictable. This is because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which relates uncertainty in pairs of observables. As an important example, the less uncertain your knowledge of position, the more uncertain your knowledge of momentum. This results in growing uncertainty of position as time passes, so you can't even hang on to one (fairly) certain observable for long! And maths quantifies all that precisely, telling you exactly how uncertain knowledge is at any time after an observation. Vague words may be useful for intuition, but the maths is the way to describe the truth.The main reason we can ignore this is the macroscopic world is that particles get bound together. When they do the exact same uncertainty principle applies to the large bound objects, but large mass means that a given uncertainty in momentum is only a small uncertainty in velocity (simple maths), so we can almost ignore the uncertainty in the position of a large object.

I made up nothing.
This is another one of those 'arguing about something we agree about' things.
We've had several of them.
You said 'the activity of no particle is completeley predictable' ...
Did I say it was?
First - definition of the word 'particle'. And 'activity'. And possible ambiguity of 'every'.
Perhaps I could have specified 'somewhat'. With 'some' as part of somewhat.
Also - the two propositions were not original to my post.
You can look up through the posts to see where it came from.
And if you think the 'either or' is valid you could say so.
"Regarding notions that every activity of every particle is predictable -
or every activity of every particle is not predictable ...." is how I then put it.
Note that 'every activity of every particle is not predictable' ...
are you saying that no activity of any particle is predictable ...
are you sure?
Are you saying that no activity of any particle is unpredictable? Yes?
-----------
we seem to definitely agree about the falseness of 'every activity of every particle is predictable'
its not.
And I've mentioned as to that several times in recent months including with mentioning Heisenberg.
You forgot?
------------------
Depending on definitions of particle, activity, and predictable ...
some activities of some particles are not predictable.
In other words no false dichotomies in other words.
You seem to have missed that point too.
But that's all right. Its not earthshaking.

Elroch

21 days ago

0

#55763

playerafar wrote:

Elroch wrote:

playerafar wrote:

Elroch wrote:

Maths is utterly crucial to all sciences. It is the language needed to describe most knowledge.

Math is crucial to science yes.
But non-mathematical language is also critically necessary - and it and math are in a kind of symbiosis which doesn't always work out.
Regarding notions that every activity of every particle is predictable -
or every activity of every particle is not predictable ....
both notions would be false because of the word 'every' and false 'either or' dichotomoy.
'Some' is a much more realistic and applicable word in these contexts.
You seem to be making that up as you go along. Your words are incorrect in a key aspect. The "activity" of no particle is completely predictable. This is because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which relates uncertainty in pairs of observables. As an important example, the less uncertain your knowledge of position, the more uncertain your knowledge of momentum. This results in growing uncertainty of position as time passes, so you can't even hang on to one (fairly) certain observable for long! And maths quantifies all that precisely, telling you exactly how uncertain knowledge is at any time after an observation. Vague words may be useful for intuition, but the maths is the way to describe the truth.The main reason we can ignore this is the macroscopic world is that particles get bound together. When they do the exact same uncertainty principle applies to the large bound objects, but large mass means that a given uncertainty in momentum is only a small uncertainty in velocity (simple maths), so we can almost ignore the uncertainty in the position of a large object.

I made up nothing.
This is another one of those 'arguing about something we agree about' things.
We've had several of them.
You said 'the activity of no particle is completeley predictable' ...
Did I say it was?

Yes. You used the word "predictable" as a boolean property.

First - definition of the word 'particle'.

For that you will need the extremely mathematical Quantum Field Theory. A particle is a quantum of a quantised field. You can use simplified notions but these will lack some of the precision that requires the full theory.

And 'activity'.

An unscientific word. I translated it into "observables" which comprise all information we could glean about a particle.

And possible ambiguity of 'every'.

No. There is no ambiguity about this word. It is a logical absolute.

You can continue advocating for vagueness, but it's not the way to go.

Sir-Fester-Duke-of-Earl

21 days ago

0

#55764

One thing is certain.

Some people need a thousand words to say nothing at all.

playerafar

21 days ago

0

#55765

Elroch wrote:

playerafar wrote:

Elroch wrote:

playerafar wrote:

Elroch wrote:

Maths is utterly crucial to all sciences. It is the language needed to describe most knowledge.

Math is crucial to science yes.
But non-mathematical language is also critically necessary - and it and math are in a kind of symbiosis which doesn't always work out.
Regarding notions that every activity of every particle is predictable -
or every activity of every particle is not predictable ....
both notions would be false because of the word 'every' and false 'either or' dichotomoy.
'Some' is a much more realistic and applicable word in these contexts.
You seem to be making that up as you go along. Your words are incorrect in a key aspect. The "activity" of no particle is completely predictable. This is because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which relates uncertainty in pairs of observables. As an important example, the less uncertain your knowledge of position, the more uncertain your knowledge of momentum. This results in growing uncertainty of position as time passes, so you can't even hang on to one (fairly) certain observable for long! And maths quantifies all that precisely, telling you exactly how uncertain knowledge is at any time after an observation. Vague words may be useful for intuition, but the maths is the way to describe the truth.The main reason we can ignore this is the macroscopic world is that particles get bound together. When they do the exact same uncertainty principle applies to the large bound objects, but large mass means that a given uncertainty in momentum is only a small uncertainty in velocity (simple maths), so we can almost ignore the uncertainty in the position of a large object.

I made up nothing.
This is another one of those 'arguing about something we agree about' things.
We've had several of them.
You said 'the activity of no particle is completeley predictable' ...
Did I say it was?

Yes. You used the word "predictable" as a boolean property.

First - definition of the word 'particle'.

For that you will need the extremely mathematical Quantum Field Theory. A particle is a quantum of a quantised field. You can use simplified notions but these will lack some of the precision that requires the full theory.

And 'activity'.

An unscientific word. I translated it into "observables" which comprise all information we could glean about a particle.

And possible ambiguity of 'every'.

No. There is no ambiguity about this word. It is a logical absolute.

You can continue advocating for vagueness, but it's not the way to go.

Every as versus all or each.
Shades of meaning.
If verbal language is so dispensable or inferior to math then math would have replaced it.
Plus I didn't say 'boolean'. You did.
I say again but rephrased - a false 'either or' dichotomy appeared to have been made but - depending on definitions. And on context also. And it wasn't by me.
Plus I'm not advocating for vagueness.
I'm suggesting qualification of terms could be useful.
Also definiton of 'particle' in its context here doesn't have to depend on Field Theory.
Try - plain english.
---------------
Notable: in earlier days 'fester' objected to your use of math in your posts Elroch.
Apparently he now has a change of tactics.
---------------
@Elroch if you really want to discuss this - you could state whether you think there's a valid 'either or' or not regarding 'activity of particles' while qualifying your terms in plain english.
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle was already a given as you know - so you don't need to argue about it.
We also know that math is necessary for science so you don't need to argue about that either.
In ther words about something you know we already agree on.

Elroch

21 days ago

0

#55766

playerafar wrote:

Elroch wrote:

playerafar wrote:

Elroch wrote:

playerafar wrote:

Elroch wrote:

Maths is utterly crucial to all sciences. It is the language needed to describe most knowledge.

Math is crucial to science yes.
But non-mathematical language is also critically necessary - and it and math are in a kind of symbiosis which doesn't always work out.
Regarding notions that every activity of every particle is predictable -
or every activity of every particle is not predictable ....
both notions would be false because of the word 'every' and false 'either or' dichotomoy.
'Some' is a much more realistic and applicable word in these contexts.
You seem to be making that up as you go along. Your words are incorrect in a key aspect. The "activity" of no particle is completely predictable. This is because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which relates uncertainty in pairs of observables. As an important example, the less uncertain your knowledge of position, the more uncertain your knowledge of momentum. This results in growing uncertainty of position as time passes, so you can't even hang on to one (fairly) certain observable for long! And maths quantifies all that precisely, telling you exactly how uncertain knowledge is at any time after an observation. Vague words may be useful for intuition, but the maths is the way to describe the truth.The main reason we can ignore this is the macroscopic world is that particles get bound together. When they do the exact same uncertainty principle applies to the large bound objects, but large mass means that a given uncertainty in momentum is only a small uncertainty in velocity (simple maths), so we can almost ignore the uncertainty in the position of a large object.

I made up nothing.
This is another one of those 'arguing about something we agree about' things.
We've had several of them.
You said 'the activity of no particle is completeley predictable' ...
Did I say it was?

Yes. You used the word "predictable" as a boolean property.

First - definition of the word 'particle'.

For that you will need the extremely mathematical Quantum Field Theory. A particle is a quantum of a quantised field. You can use simplified notions but these will lack some of the precision that requires the full theory.

And 'activity'.

An unscientific word. I translated it into "observables" which comprise all information we could glean about a particle.

And possible ambiguity of 'every'.

No. There is no ambiguity about this word. It is a logical absolute.

You can continue advocating for vagueness, but it's not the way to go.

Every as versus all or each. Shades of meaning.

Nope. Every = all. This is reflected in basic logic, as Aristotle explained. The concepts transcend any linguistic issues (say regarding ancient Greek and English).

Take a look at section 4.3 of the article on Aristotelean logic in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

playerafar

21 days ago

0

#55767

Sir-Fester-Duke-of-Earl wrote:

It's bad enough religion and politics distort reality. Add high level (?) Math and reality is replaced by "what if".

From just a few hours ago.
Elroch responded with a post that math is necessary. He's right.
I agree. It is.
But i stated that language is necessary too.
------------------
In science fiction stories - math is sometimes regarded as a 'universal communication tool' to talk to aliens.
But actually that wouldn't work. Not equations and algebra.
You'd need diagrams instead. First. And then to establish definitions of terms too.
You might have to get into 'boolean' and set theory too. Diagrams again.
Then some kind of terms or ways to refer to what matters or not.
Thought experiments about what could work or not. Of course they've been published.
I'm going to check on it though. FIrst. On the internet.
---------
Confirmed. Such thought experiments have been published over a long period of time.
Famously.
And are even part of funded projects.
A point that's missed is how such experiments pertain to education.

RonaldJosephCote

21 days ago

0

#55768

post 55761:....."Elroch, how do you know so much"? He has a number of college degrees. He's what's known as a "good boy". Yrs ago in school he actually studied & did his homework......while the rest of us screwed-off.

playerafar

21 days ago

0

#55769

@Elroch
I also suggest you consider the fact that pure math by itself wouldn't work and the relevance to education.

Elroch

21 days ago

0

#55770

Language is necessary too, for sure!

playerafar

21 days ago

0

#55771

A suggestion was made that math is 'added'.
I would think that science begins with both math and language and also diagrams too.

Thee_Ghostess_Lola

21 days ago

0

#55772

ppl harrass u here pluto...and yet your right so mucha the time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swu0DCXHYzA

DiogenesDue

21 days ago

0

#55773

Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:

ppl harrass you u here pluto...and yet your right so mucha the time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swu0DCXHYzA

Your viewpoint is a bit skewed.

As proven during my recent trip away, Player consistently harasses posters (as in, attacking posters repeatedly even when they are not engaging). It's also strange that you would say this following an exchange where Player was logically shown to be mistaken.

The Golden Girls video makes sense, though.

chesskingisagod

21 days ago

0

#55774

This me (look at my profile pic (I took a pic of my X-ray (is this normal btw?)))

playerafar

21 days ago

0

#55775

Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:

ppl harrass you u here pluto...and yet your right so mucha the time

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swu0DCXHYzA

Thank you too L .
Its mainly two people with that bad habit of trying to make ill feelings in the forums.
They know its them that do so.
And its not you not I.
Now that link ... . Right.

playerafar

21 days ago

0

#55776

And communication - and communication of science and its precursors - going way back towards prehistory connects directly with the forum subject.
Before formal science and math. The evolution of trades and skills.

Thee_Ghostess_Lola

21 days ago

0

#55777

back when there wuz fire & spears & banana hammocks (lol !) ppl didnt really need STEM right ? ..i wooda put a bone in my hair and counted birds w/ my piggy digits and played tic-tac-toe in a cave on a wall. feeling thankful a having two a everything (and shhh ..u can thank me in the morning).

Senior-Lazarus_Long

20 days ago

0

#55778

A forgotten fossil hidden inside a garden wall has turned out to be one of Australia’s most remarkable prehistoric discoveries. Scientists have now identified the 240-million-year-old amphibian, Arenaerpeton supinatus, revealing an almost perfectly preserved skeleton—complete with rare traces of skin. This ancient river predator, about 1.2 meters long, looked somewhat like a giant salamander but was bulkier and armed with fearsome fang-like teeth

Etymologist35

19 days ago

0

#55779

This thread is evolving.

I might say devolving, but mean no offense. Some here would also argue that devolution is not a thing, as evolution is not driven. Or something like that.

It may be entropy or it may just be the natural ebb n flow of things.

Amphibious creatures are interesting. Nice to know we are still learning.

WhiteCoreMage

19 days ago

0

#55780

How is this still alive