r norman <rsn_@_comcast.net> wrote:-
>>>>JE:- Typically BOH replaces testable reality with just
>>>>his "expectations" of it. In simple terms such an absurd
>>>>event is termed: propaganda. The master was Stalin. He
>>>>turned reality into his "expectations" and millions
>>>>perished.
>>>BOH:- John, please read up on simple probability theory
>>>before you write another post ridiculing expectations.
>>>They have a precise mathematical definition, which you
>>>seem to be totally unaware of. As for testability, you
>>>might like to read up about a wonderful subject called
>>>"statistics". It's used to fit models to data, which is
>>>an esential component of testing hypotheses. One of the
>>>things you can do is to estimate expected values (e.g. of
>>>allele frequency changes).
>>>JE:- Once again BOH asks us to replace a testable reality
>>>with just his expectations of it.
>> <snip>
>> BOH:- This is just a sematic game.
>> JE:- No, it is your "game" of misrepresentation.
> BOH:- No, your statement confuses two uses of the word
> "expectation". I was using the word in a technical sense,
> which I then tried to explain. Your senetence seemed to
> use the non-technical sense of the word, which is a
> different matter. Your sentence implies that in replacing
> the real world with something else, I am not making any
> allowance for the fact that the real world may be
> different. This is not the case, and the implication in
> your sentence comes purely from the different uses of a
> word. In that sense it is purely a matter of playing with
> semantics.
JE:- If you are not just "replacing the real world with
something else" using the "technical sense" of the word
"expectation", then what is the "real world" representation
of fitness that you are estimating?
><snip>
>> BOH:- The expectation is of a random variable, not of
>> reality.
>> JE:- Which makes your attempt to replace a testable
>> Darwinian reality with such an estimate, even more
>> absurd.
>BOH The only "Darwinian reality" is the real world. In our
>theories we have to replace the real world with something
>simpler, otherwise we cannot understand it.
JE:- Incorrect. Our theories of the world constitute all
of our _concepts_ of it. We are not granted any god given
concepts about our world, just percepts. We have to make
up all our _concepts_ for ourselves. We do this by
creating _contestable_ theories of _nature_ so that we can
eliminate the poorer ones. This is completed via the
refutation of absolute assumptions contained within each
concept we create.
RN:- Bob, John Edser simply refuses to accept as scientific
anything that involves probability or probabilistic
phenomena or processes.
JE:- Incorrect. All statistics can do is establish a
correlation. Such correlations can indicate if any observed
pattern is significant or not significant, i.e. is just a
non significant random OR a significant, non random pattern.
In the sciences the inductive (creative) mind must now
explain any non random correlation via the invention of
contesting theories of cause and effect. Always, _four_
possibilities exist. If we assume we have observed two non
random patterns A and B such that these patterns are also
correlated in a non random way then:
1) The process that caused pattern A caused the process that
caused pattern B
2) The process that caused pattern B caused the process that
caused pattern A
3) A 3rd unknown process c, caused both of the other
processes.
4) None of the processes that caused pattern A or pattern B
are associated in a causative way.
Only one of the 4 above, must remain.
RN:- I don't know what he does with quantum theory or
analysis of membrane noise or diffusion or anything related.
It doesn't do any good arguing.
JE:- The above form valid _parts_ of contestable theories of
nature, nothing more and nothing less.
RN:- If you think this is strange, you should read his stuff
on set theory!
JE:- All I suggested was:
(5) All Darwinian parents have a finite total fitness within
one population. This the total count of all fertile
forms reproduced by each parent. Each parental total
fitness count is the absolute fitness of that parent. It
remains fixed.
(6) Each parent within each population compares their total
fitness count with every other via just a default
process, i.e. a process that requires no cognition and
no energy. This default comparison must compare at least
two parental absolute fitness counts,
i.e. it is the relative difference between at least two
total parental fitnesses.
(3) The parent/s with the largest absolute fitness
is/are automatically selected.
4) A logic of why (3) is true MUST BE PROVIDED. As yet Neo
Darwinians do not think that automatic selection needs to
be explained because it is just, "obvious". The more
obvious something is the more obvious it is to any
competent epistemologist that a valid logic MUST be must
provided to understand
it.
5) To provide a logic for the natural selective event I have
described above, I simply proposed that set theory can be
validly be employed to illustrate
iu. In this simple illustration each parents total fitness
count, i.e. its absolute fitness now constitutes just a
simple _numerical_ total. These numerical totals are
totally intersected. The numerical total that is the
largest becomes a single set containing all the others
(in this case just one other) as sub sets.
Example: If A = total 7 and B = total 10 then when they are
totally intersected the following simple Venn Diagram is
produced. It shows the total intersection of two circles
representing set A and B which are just sets of numbers.
Venn Diagram:
---- ----
/ \/ \
/ /\ \
| | | |
| |7 | 3 |
| | | |
\ \/ / \ /\ / ---- ---- set A Set B
ALL of set A is now totally within set B so that only set B
actually exists to be selected, i.e. only one set actually
exists for nature to select so that nature has no choice but
to select set B. In so doing, nature is also selecting set A
but NOT, simultaneously. Sub set A is sub selected after set
B has firstly been selected, i.e. set A comes 2nd in natures
automatic natural selective game.
It makes no difference how many sets are intersected,
i.v. more than just two can also be intersected. If the two
sets have exactly the same totals, say 10, then:
---- ---- / \/ \ / /\ \
| | | |
| |10| 0 |
| | | |
\ \/ / \ /\ / ---- ---- set A Set B
In this instance both sets are selected simultaneously so
that both of them win.
The exact orders of natural selection are easily described
using this SIMPLE logical illustration. When n unequal sets
are totally intersected only 1 set is selected but n-1 sets
are _sub_ selected in an exact logical sequence.
Neither RN, AW, JM, BOH or GH who all contributed to
the thread:
"Intersecting Sets Of Fitness"
have contributed any valid criticism of the above which in
essence just compares two numerical totals. IMHO
intellectual honesty is seems to be missing re: this
discussion.
___________________________________________________
Is it valid or in valid to compare two or more sets of
numbers in the way described? I would appreciate an
honest ANSWER,
____________________________________________________
Respectfully,
John Edser Independent Researcher PO Box 266 Church Pt NSW
2105 Australia
[email protected]