Darwin is tricky

[Bishadi]

One example of how Darwin’s representation of evolution or the existing pattern he described is tricky to understand is that the math of current sciences maintain a ‘law’ of equilibrium or entropy.

This means mass will always ‘cool’ or lose its energy to its surroundings so to speak. (chaos)

And in most tests with inanimate matter, this is pretty much, experimentally supported as well Newton provided the math to substantiate what is observed. So in a sense, this ‘law’ is set in stone. (current paradigm)

But evolution and the pattern naturally observed shares that life, can entangle with its environment and evolve or adjust to the surrounding associations. Such that in a literal sense for mass to migrate, like herds of buffalo; the animal is adjusting for the associated environment, is as pure as an egg of a “single cell” follows a time established genetic development into a human being. i.e…. to observe a human fetus developing in the early weeks; see how many tail bones there are (count them) and then when born or fully developed; how many tail bones do we have. So just to watch a birth through the development of a new born; watch evolution in a hurry.

Still; the differences is the math of current scientific explanations; has no mechanics to show the increase of potential between 2 inanimate forms of mass.

Like wise, the progression is based on the interrelation of all mass to each other based on the entanglement property of energy between all mass/existence.

So to confirm evolution and how the progression actually exists is as simple as observing how energy (light) entangles mass in time. Or to share in a easy way for each to recognize;

Tap the surface of a flat pond, see the wave (life) move through the pond, in time (anywhere in the pond the wave can be neasured) . Now tap the surface 2 times; when 2 waves interact, the combined increases their total potential and the life of the individual and total wave lasts longer in life with greater affect and action upon the whole pond.

So another tricky part of Darwin’s description of evolution is that there is no real mechanism (math) defining this process in the current sciences that can be accurate to all levels of science.

The reason is in how energy is defined.

[wil]

Namaste Bishadi,

What's up? Are you so enamored with your response to your own thread in another forum that you decided to cut and paste it as a thread starter in this forum?

What's up with that?

[Eclectic Mystic]

Yea, you're only allowed to start threads if you are unenamored. Fortunately, however, wil is enamored enough by it too (as indicated by his ironic reply) which cancels that out, and so it wont be deleted.

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by wil

Namaste Bishadi,

What's up? Are you so enamored with your response to your own thread in another forum that you decided to cut and paste it as a thread starter in this forum?

What's up with that?

Perhaps more definitions offers more knowledge to be observed. There are a few on this site that are watching and thinking people.

Meaning as knowledge evolves; it is shared and the more who can access and offer opinions, the greater the defining process EVOLVES!

since you personally are so bend on contradicting rather than actually 'doing'..... it appears you have no intent on developing much of anything except your own needs/desires ..... ye almighty salame of the forum...

your PM messages reminded me of a rookie police officer weilding his power

Just like this post you made; not a thing for others but


'do you feel better?'

will yourself off the thread as you shared unequivocally just how much power you have; if i use bad words or even make you feel like a virgin

step aside; there is a whole world of knowledge to unfold and either you are for the good of the people or you are not; make your choice as this 'i' suffers no fools.... meaning even if you were George Bush or the Pope; either treat people as equal and with good intent or go lay by your dish.

[17th Angel]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

since you personally are so bend on contradicting rather than actually 'doing'..... it appears you have no intent on developing much of anything except your own needs/desires ..... ye almighty salame of the forum...

your PM messages reminded me of a rookie police officer weilding his power

The hells are you talking about? Wil doesn't come across as someone who thinks he is some almighty being.... He is a moderator... He isn't just a poster here, he has a role here... And being in that role he has to act accordingly.. It has nothing to do with being some digital supreme being... It is about doing what is asked of him.

[wil]

Namaste Bishadi,

Just looking for an honest answer. Don't shoot the messenger. You did post the exact same message in two different forums did you not? It isn't the first time is it?

So my question, is this rehashing old news, what kind of discussion were you expecting?

I don't see questions, discussion openers, I see you as providing us insight from on high, not just in this thread but others. I'm just trying to get a grip on your purpose playing in this sand box, not as a moderator, but as a contributor. Are you here to dig in the sand and playe with the rest of us. or to provide marching orders, or to correct our imperfect sand castles, or to kick sand in our face?

What is it? I'm not intent on berating you, just asking for the explanation, is that wrong?

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by wil

Namaste Bishadi,

Just looking for an honest answer. Don't shoot the messenger. You did post the exact same message in two different forums did you not? It isn't the first time is it?

So my question, is this rehashing old news, what kind of discussion were you expecting?

I don't see questions, discussion openers, I see you as providing us insight from on high, not just in this thread but others. I'm just trying to get a grip on your purpose playing in this sand box, not as a moderator, but as a contributor. Are you here to dig in the sand and playe with the rest of us. or to provide marching orders, or to correct our imperfect sand castles, or to kick sand in our face?

What is it? I'm not intent on berating you, just asking for the explanation, is that wrong?

if you read each line above, each question you asked is answered

"Perhaps more definitions offers more knowledge to be observed. There are a few on this site that are watching and thinking people.

Meaning as knowledge evolves; it is shared and the more who can access and offer opinions, the greater the defining process EVOLVES!"

what was observed is only what you want to..... that's not contributing; that's maintaining the self as what is important to you (job or not)

the thread is for others to contemplate, build bridges of comprehension as well open up minds for questions. in addressing an item of important such as whether life was 'created' or 'evolved' is something that affects every human being alive; so PM me, all you like, bark, yell, pull the cork; which ever choice you like is yours to make

but the items above are not anything of a rant as each line item on the thread opener is not speculative but answers and observances any person can see for themselves.

it builds a foundation for progress

[path_of_one]

I'm just wondering what the point is. I don't see a ton here about Darwin's actual theories, by the way. There is a lot to the theory of evolution, but I can only see vague attempts here to link evolution to physics. There is no specificity to the science or math to grasp. I'm not sure, Bishadi, if that is because you simply haven't posted it or if you are saying you have this vague idea but haven't done the bridging between the two.

Guess I'm saying: ok, but so what? Of course, all life impacts all life. I'm no physicist, but from what I understand of quantum mechanics, we are all entangled in a process of projecting reality. It's a probability game.

In the realm of evolutionary theory, particularly human evolution, I'm on much more solid ground. But I fail to see the point here.

Are you asking us how we would bridge quantum mechanics and evolution?

Also, I don't think knowledge evolves necessarily. Humanity has lost much of the knowledge it used to have. Culture/knowledge only evolves if by evolution you mean "something different." It does not evolve in the sense of progress. Mutations (whether physical or cultural) are only advantageous in certain environmental contexts, so progress is always tenuous and limited by circumstance. There is very, very little that is an absolutely advantageous trait.

In physical mutation, we can take examples such as sickle-cell anemia. The trait causes higher risk of death and illness in a population. So why does it continue in certain environments and not in others? Because in certain environments, it is advantageous, whereas in others it is not. You put a sickle-cell person in our US society (which has no problems with malaria) and the trait is deleterious. You put a sickle-cell person in Africa and it affords them some protection against malaria. So they get a bit sick from sickle-cell and a bit sick from malaria, but have a higher chance of surviving both than a non-sickle cell person. Same trait- but whether or not it is progress in human evolution depends on the environment.

Similarly, some of what has occurred in culture has been advantageous only in certain environmental contexts or has come with equally compelling advantages and disadvantages. We have built global trade and communication, but are rapidly outstripping our resource base. Specialization of knowledge works quite well in our modern pseudo-capitalist system, but if anything substantially bad happens environmentally and wrecks the economic and political system, people are screwed as they have lost the knowledge necessary to survive on their own in a state of self-sufficiency.

So... As a scientist, I see little progress in evolution unless bound by environmental context. What I see is a constant generation of change, which I do feel points to fundamental truths about the nature of the cosmos and the Divine.

As a mystic, I would put forth that there is a pool of "knowledge" if you will that exists with or without humans interacting with it. We are not the only intelligent, conscious beings in the universe and the world we generally perceive with waking consciousness is not the only one. Nor is regular communication as we are partaking in here the only form of communication. As a mystic, I do not learn only from other human beings, but from other beings in general of many types. While a different method of inquiry, it is possible to tap into these other ways of knowing. In that sense, we discover what is already known. We remember it, as it already inhabits ourselves and our world. We only have to remember how to engage it. We aren't really building anything. We are just uncovering what is.

[Tao_Equus]

Bishadi,

I am in accord with Path's post above, particularly the first paragraph. I had read your OP several times and could actually find no meaningful way to respond to it. I have had this issue with you before.

I find it more than a little arrogant of you to proclaim that you possess an insight few of us are capable of. If you could demonstrate that you do have a genuine insight, and make a genuine effort to share that with us in language that we might comprehend then I might really enjoy what you have to say. But here, as before, it seems you only want to showcase your own mystery, to massage your own ego by saying nothing useful but trying to sound like you are saying something profound. You continue to intrigue me yet I must say that to blame the pupils for not listening when you 'teach' the most meaningless and boring of lessons is ridiculous. When each of us thinks back to which teachers made a difference and those that emphatically did not it invariably boils down to the way they taught, not what they taught. So please Bishadi, get over yourself, learn to communicate to us mere mortals in terms we might understand or else you are wasting our time, and yours.


tao

[greymare]

bish,,,,,,,,,,, from the crowd............


blah, blah, blah.

[Bishadi]

I'm just wondering what the point is. I don't see a ton here about

Darwin's actual theories, by the way. There is a lot to the theory of evolution, but I can only see vague attempts here to link evolution to physics. There is no specificity to the science or math to grasp.

Exactly the point.

There is no math in a physics constraint sharing how inanimate matter associates to cause life. Planck’s constant on what energy is, is wrong!

I'm not sure, Bishadi, if that is because you simply haven't posted it or if you are saying you have this vague idea but haven't done the bridging between the two.

A complete paradigm shift must occur in the sciences and that is what correcting energy does. The processes of how mass, energy and time “equate” and combine with the recognized existence (knowledge) can be perfected by addressing ‘light’ and all her properties (i.e.. resonance, entanglement) in time (environment)

.. is what the whole globe is awaiting as then the ‘name of God’ is then perfected.

Guess I'm saying: ok, but so what? Of course, all life impacts all life. I'm no physicist, but from what I understand of quantum mechanics, we are all entangled in a process of projecting reality.

To comprehend what life is and how ‘each choice’ is an imposition to existence and what the ‘good’ imposition are relative to existence, then each can live with the responsibility of EXACTLY what to do and what not to you.

It's a probability game.

that belief is almost like a religious believer (we simply cannot know)……. Them days are soon over!

In the realm of evolutionary theory, particularly human evolution, I'm on much more solid ground. But I fail to see the point here.

did you count the tail bones? Yes or no……

Are you asking us how we would bridge quantum mechanics and evolution?

the core frame is already done but not published.

Not making the irresponsible move as Einstein did. Published without recognizing what would occur when in contrast, the math was known 25 years back but the 'community' could not understand it and over this period the combination of most every branch of the sciences has been observed and combined just to make sure the frame is correct as well comprehensibly understood.

Also, I don't think knowledge evolves necessarily. There is very, very little that is an absolutely advantageous trait.

Then why you buy the updated version of software….. please….. if knowledge did not evolve you would never have learned how to tie your shoes…

In physical mutation, we can take examples such as sickle-cell anemia. The trait causes higher risk of death and illness in a population. So why does it continue in certain environments and not in others?

because sickle cell also prevents malaria from setting in…. It is because there are only three iron carrying structures in each hemoglobin rather than the 4 which affect the reactions.

but whether or not it is progress in human evolution depends on the environment.

and in evolution environment governs.

We aren't really building anything. We are just uncovering what is.

Exactly! and since what many suggest is true does not fit with what we experience, then ‘that’ rendition or belief is ‘wrong’……

Existence only operates ONE way and as knowledge EVOLVES we learn how to understanding what we experience.

Knowledge evolves with the ‘creation’ of words by mankind!

Don’t care who you talk to on the other side; this one keeps both feet flat on the ground; truth lives in absolution; There is no 2 ways it works…. Only ONE!

And for it to be absolutely true, then it MUST work mathematically removing all ‘uncertainties’ and all beliefs, phenomenon, magic and omnipotence as none of them exists but only in the minds of ignorance.

The more we learn of ‘what is’ the less phenomena that is retained as true.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Bishadi

There is no math in a physics constraint sharing how inanimate matter associates to cause life. Planck’s constant on what energy is, is wrong!

Explain. The first sentence is nonsensical in english, so perhaps try editing the grammar to make it more comprehensible? The second begs explanation. No scientist accepts another's argument purely on the grounds that it is stated.

A complete paradigm shift must occur in the sciences and that is what correcting energy does. The processes of how mass, energy and time “equate” and combine with the recognized existence (knowledge) can be perfected by addressing ‘light’ and all her properties (i.e.. resonance, entanglement) in time (environment)

OK. So why bother writing these short little posts that say nothing until you've published the full thing so we can actually review it? Science doesn't work in vague and clandestine suggestions. Paradigm shifts happen through solid, published and peer-reviewed data and theory, not mysterious and short posts on internet forums. No offense, but it ain't the way to get a paradigm shift going in science. Just being honest.

To comprehend what life is and how ‘each choice’ is an imposition to existence and what the ‘good’ imposition are relative to existence, then each can live with the responsibility of EXACTLY what to do and what not to you.

That's already possible, I think. We can know what to do if we are still enough in our minds to receive guidance from God- we cannot comprehend the whole of the flows of reality, but we can know what our place in it should be. It just takes effort, stillness, and sincerity.

that belief is almost like a religious believer (we simply cannot know)……. Them days are soon over!

OK. But without specifics, you really don't have a point. Your belief is also like a religious believer, and ungrounded in any detail, so why should people listen? I'm still waiting for actual information here.

did you count the tail bones? Yes or no……

Tail bones- what is the point. We have tail bones. OK. So? I was referring to the process of evolution and human genetics. Tail bones are of little interest compared to brain and language function, at least for me.

the core frame is already done but not published.

When it's published, let me know and I'll have a read. Until then, there isn't enough detail for me to really get what you're saying or to evaluate if you have any clue what you're talking about. I'm waiting for the details, as I suspect others are.

Then why you buy the updated version of software….. please…..

I only do when it would benefit me in my current environment. And it doesn't always. Blindly going on to the next thing is hardly evolution.

if knowledge did not evolve you would never have learned how to tie your shoes…

You confuse evolution with development. This is clearly separate processes and concepts in evolutionary science.

and in evolution environment governs.

Exactly. So knowledge evolving doesn't mean anything unless it is beneficial in the environment in which the knower exists.

Exactly! and since what many suggest is true does not fit with what we experience, then ‘that’ rendition or belief is ‘wrong’……

The problem is in the details of cognition and experience. I experience a different world than you. You can't know my world and I can't know yours. So what beliefs are wrong for you (i.e., inaccurate to your experience) may be right for me.

If you haven't studied human cognition and how it impacts the *how* of thought, I'd recommend doing so, with plenty of cross-cultural data. A good place to start is Berlin and Kay's work on perceptions of color cross-culturally. Ethnoscience literature offers a good bit of data and theory as well.

You exist in a cognitive space that is tied to your culture, environment, personality, genetics. Just like everyone else. And these inform how you think and process information. So when you think your ideas are right and others' ideas are wrong, you are falling prey to the same faulty assumptions everyone else is making- that you share the same basis for cognition in the first place.

Existence only operates ONE way

Proof?

and as knowledge EVOLVES we learn how to understanding what we experience.

Do we understand our experience? Or do we build an illusion that covers it up? Is coming closer to the Divine a process of learning or forgetting? Or might this depend on the context?

Knowledge evolves with the ‘creation’ of words by mankind!

Words are limiting. Just look at the nightmare of us holding this conversation.

In all seriousness, plenty of good stuff written on the limitations of language and how it affects cognition. Lots of good stuff in linguistics and also a fair bit in Confucianism, if you want to go with a philosophical side.

I'd just put forth a choice bit from Taoism:

The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao.

Don’t care who you talk to on the other side; this one keeps both feet flat on the ground; truth lives in absolution; There is no 2 ways it works…. Only ONE!

Um, yeah. This tells me nothing except you are closed off to the other states of consciousness and the types of communication possible there. And that you've not thought out what it means to exist as you do in this world.

What defines your feet as separate from the ground? On the ground rather than a part of it?

As much as you do no care who I talk to, it does show a close-mindedness and limitation.

Until one sees the limitations and biases of their own cognition- until they realize that what they know is not what is- they are unable to move forward in actually engaging information. This is true in science as well as anything else. Ethnocentrism limits one's capacity to know the truth about anything, or to see anything clearly. Recognition of one's own biases and ethnocentrism is what frees one to be analytical of one's own thoughts and not just those of others.

And for it to be absolutely true, then it MUST work mathematically removing all ‘uncertainties’ and all beliefs, phenomenon, magic and omnipotence as none of them exists but only in the minds of ignorance.

Perhaps define all these things and then I'd know how to respond to this statement which is, as it is, a bunch of fluff.

How does math remove uncertainty? What does math mean and why is it valuable, and if it is not context-constrained, why not? And how is math not a language to define your own beliefs? How is it protected from the same problems that plague all other human cognition? Is that which is provable in mathematics true, or do we think it is true? Can we know the difference?

How can one remove phenomena? Perhaps you should review a definition of phenomenon?

As for magic, you don't understand it the way I do, that is clear. You must be operating off a very limited definition, but as you haven't defined anything yet, I can't respond. Except to say that there are a lot of different views on what magic is, and some are agreeable with quantum mechanics.

So far, I see a demonstrated lack of reading in quite a few fields of science combined with a lot of vague statements, neither of which inspires confidence in your theories. Perhaps demonstrating some sources, some actual details, some substance of some sort, would help?

The more we learn of ‘what is’ the less phenomena that is retained as true.

From the dictionary:
1plural phenomena : an observable fact or event2plural phenomena a: an object or aspect known through the senses rather than by thought or intuition b: a temporal or spatiotemporal object of sensory experience as distinguished from a noumenon c: a fact or event of scientific interest susceptible to scientific description and explanation3 a: a rare or significant fact or event

So which of these exactly will fade away by our knowing "what is"? Ar eyou saying we will know through intuition and therefore be without need of sensory/observational input? Or are you confusing your word choice?

Personally, I do think intuition yields less reliance on sensory input, but as you already dismissed mysticism, which is intuitive, as a viable way of knowing, where does that leave you in this argument?

[_Z_]

i hadent noticed it before as i am not always here and found it intriguing, although i didn’t understand what was being said.

e.g. in laymans terms, entropy exists in every cell, that is why we grow old and die, and i don’t see why life as a short term measure against entropy and evolution contradict maths or if so, i would ask is math relevant. some things in life, like life just does stuff without going by any mathematical set of limits, it is just more fluid.

[Bishadi]

"There is no math in a physics constraint sharing how inanimate matter associates to cause life. Planck’s constant on what energy is, is wrong!
"

Explain. The first sentence is nonsensical in english, so perhaps try editing the grammar to make it more comprehensible? The second begs explanation. No scientist accepts another's argument purely on the grounds that it is stated.

let's try it again

There is no math in a physics constraint (math are the values/ physics the 'process' ) sharing how inanimate matter associates to cause life. (how rocks (atoms) and light (em upon mass) interact to share the properties defined as life.

Planck’s constant (h) on what energy is (isolated qubit of joule/eV), is wrong!

will read the rest while you think on this

[path_of_one]

Do we have a physicist in the house? I know we have at least one mathematician, so I'll wait til he arrives. But from what I understand from a previous thread, he believes you are confusing math and physics. As I understand it from one of the mathematicians I know, math is a language with which to describe some processes. What is interesting to me is to ponder whether, like language, math can be used to say things that are not grounded in reality- that is, if math could create poetry. I think math is not values, but rather language of a certain type. Physics studies certain processes; math provides a language more conducive to describing these processes than english.

The question of how physics and evolutionary science may or may not fit together is interesting, but seems to be like quantum mechanics and gravity: describing processes at different levels of reality.

My initial thought is that there is a big difference between atoms and rocks, and that matter is likely to be largely an illusion- a temporary manifestation of something that appears to be real, when it is in fact only energy, and it is our thought that causes the energy to seem as matter.

From what I understand of string theory, atoms can be reduced to sub-atomic particles, and in turn to quarks, and in turn ultimately to vibrating strands of energy.

In terms of how that relates to life, I think everything is alive. So life is a property or attribute of all existence, of the universe itself. So then, one attribute of energy is that it is alive. Now, whether or not it has various types of consciousness is another question.

If you would argue that everything is not alive, I would put forth that there is much evidence that the lines drawn between life and non-life are relatively arbitrary and quite fuzzy given the data (similarly, defining species is a slippery and fuzzy process). So a bacteria is alive. But what about a virus? A prion? A prion seems very much not alive, yet reproduces, arguably can evolve. How if it is not alive? LOL Oh, it's fun stuff to consider the fuzziness of "reality."