Predictability in Nature

[Pincho Paxton]

So much talk about randomness has led me to think more about predictability. Nature seems to start of with a Quantum event that is fairly random. Yet the swinging of a pendulum is very predictable. To me that means that nature is correcting certain situations, and taking away the randomness so that a form of communication can happen between objects. Like the way that photons hit the electrons that we are looking at. It's communication between the electron, the photon, and us.

So we now have an argument that all things are random, and predictability in nature is nature being tidy. I always say this, but....

It seems that predictability is sentience in nature.

And my feeling about this sentience in nature keeps getting stronger the more I examine the evidence. If you want me to put it more clearly....

I believe that there is a communication between particles.

[daybrown]

So much talk about randomness has led me to think more about predictability. Nature seems to start of with a Quantum event that is fairly random. Yet the swinging of a pendulum is very predictable. To me that means that nature is correcting certain situations, and taking away the randomness so that a form of communication can happen between objects. Like the way that photons hit the electrons that we are looking at. It's communication between the electron, the photon, and us.

So we now have an argument that all things are random, and predictability in nature is nature being tidy. I always say this, but....

It seems that predictability is sentience in nature.

And my feeling about this sentience in nature keeps getting stronger the more I examine the evidence. If you want me to put it more clearly....

I believe that there is a communication between particles.

That's what Sheldrake argues in "The Presence of the Past", calling it "morphic fields". He implies that while the brain does not have enuf neurons to remember everything, it does have enuf to create tuning circuits for different kinds of patterns. So- when you remember something, you dont call up a bitmap of a scene, but a collection of fratals arranged to resemble the scene.

Quite often that construction includes stuff that was not there, and fails to render stuff that was.

[vicdan]

The stupid, it HURTS!!!

[hsandman]

"The stupid, it HURTS!!!"

Feelings are fun! =D

[Philosophaster]

Hehe, Sheldrake...

V., remember the New Agers (LouMajors, robfromdetroit, et. al.) back at TPG blabbering about the "morphogenetic field?" LOL.

[vicdan]

Yah, and the incredibly ignorance of these morons never ceases to amaze me.

Some people would believe anything.

or, to paraphrase what Voltaire had said: those who believe absurdities, can commit atrocities.

There's danger in tham thar hills of faith.

[hsandman]

Some people would believe anything.

or, to paraphrase what Voltaire had said: those who believe absurdities, can commit atrocities.

Vic, do you belive that those who are most deluded (ie. belive in absurdities) commit the most atrocities?

That is == groups that commit (most) atrocities are the ones that are (the most) deluded?

[daybrown]

Yah, and the incredibly ignorance of these morons never ceases to amaze me.

Some people would believe anything.
or, to paraphrase what Voltaire had said: those who believe absurdities, can commit atrocities.
There's danger in tham thar hills of faith.

Agreed, but often we dont know what to believe. Morphic fields seem to be involved in transgenerational effects.
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v10/ ... 0901a.html
or google (epigenetics methyl sweden generation) for a buncha hits. DNA is not what its been cracked up to be. For instance "If the paternal grandfather was exposed to a surfeit of food during his SGP, then the proband had a fourfold excess mortality related to diabetes (OR 4.1, 95%)"

WTF is going on here? I assure you Vic, it dont fit in your cosmology. DNA didnt mutate in 3 generations. This website: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/70052 ... ption.html mentions how the Lamarckian theory of genetics, which has had its adherents regarded as incredibly ignorant morons, needs to be revisited.

Not that there is not an abundant supply of morons, but as Socrates noted, sometimes its the fool who sees the emperor has no clothes. Its a good bet that some of the other dimensions quantum physics says must exist have field effects that manipulate what would otherwise be random. Murphy's law seems to have something to do with that.

[vicdan]

Vic, do you belive that those who are most deluded (ie. belive in absurdities) commit the most atrocities?

That's a badly framed question. When an atrocity is committed, who counts as committing it -- the ones who carry it out, or the ones who order it?

people who believe absurdities -- people who have faith -- are necessary for evil to be done. Without them, there would be far less suffering in the world, and probably no genocide major, large-scale war. Believing absurdities, faith as it is, is a necessary ingredient in such things.

[vicdan]

Agreed, but often we dont know what to believe. Morphic fields

... are BS. There was never the 100th monkey -- that story is fabricated. Whatever factors are heritable outside DNA, they have nothing to do with these magical morphogenetic fields.

seem to be involved in transgenerational effects.
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v10/ ... 0901a.html

You fucking idiot, epigenetic inheritance has nothing to do with morphogenetic fields.

WTF is going on here? I assure you Vic, it dont fit in your cosmology.

Erm, yes, it do. There is nothing magical about epigenetic inheritance. it's little-understood yet, but we know enough about it to say that it's just plain old biochemistry.

For you to jump from 'something weird going on' to 'morphogenetic fields!' is intellectually dishonest in the extreme.

DNA didnt mutate in 3 generations. This website: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/70052 ... ption.html mentions how the Lamarckian theory of genetics, which has had its adherents regarded as incredibly ignorant morons, needs to be revisited.

No, it doesn't. While epigenetic inheritance allows some non-genetic characteristics to have heritable influence, this has nothing to do with Lamarckian evolution, which posits that within-generation adaptation is biologically heritable, which is not at all what your linked article talks about.

Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than open it and remove all doubt.

Not that there is not an abundant supply of morons, but as Socrates noted, sometimes its the fool who sees the emperor has no clothes. Its a good bet that some of the other dimensions quantum physics says must exist have field effects that manipulate what would otherwise be random. Murphy's law seems to have something to do with that.

And Illuminati! Don't forget the Illuminati!

[Shardrol]

Victor

You write about causing suffering as if it's a bad thing so why is almost every single one of your posts riddled with insults such as "you fucking idiot"? It's really quite unpleasant to read. Yeah I know you don't care but then what's the problem with other kinds of suffering?

[hsandman]

Vic, do you belive that those who are most deluded (ie. belive in absurdities) commit the most atrocities?

That's a badly framed question. When an atrocity is committed, who counts as committing it -- the ones who carry it out, or the ones who order it?

people who believe absurdities -- people who have faith -- are necessary for evil to be done. Without them, there would be far less suffering in the world, and probably no genocide major, large-scale war. Believing absurdities, faith as it is, is a necessary ingredient in such things.

Indeed. Glad to see we have some sort of understanding there.

[daybrown]

<No, it doesn't. While epigenetic inheritance allows some non-genetic characteristics to have heritable influence, this has nothing to do with Lamarckian evolution, which posits that within-generation adaptation is biologically heritable, which is not at all what your linked article talks about.>
I fail to see what diff it makes if you can only determine the diff in 3 generations rather than two. The second link made clear what you can see in several other examples as well, that there is a "lemarkian" effect. I put that in quotes cause I dunno what special definition you have for the term. But suffice to say, that the standard dismissal has always been based on the assumption that environmental effects had no effect on subsequent generations, without regard to the question of whether we can see those effects on the DNA.

Nevertheless, I can see where you mite find yourself in a universe which permits such certainty as you display. The reality I live on is full of ambiguities, and doubt is commonly warranted. I should have remembered that your reality is different, and you regard everyone who does not live on it as a fool.

[vicdan]

Indeed. Glad to see we have some sort of understanding there.

And yet you believe absurdities eagerly...

[vicdan]

You write about causing suffering as if it's a bad thing

it's not? Great. Let's make you suffer from having a sandpaper-wrapped baseball bat shoved up your ass. Or perhaps you would like to tell us how genocide is not a bad thing?

so why is almost every single one of your posts riddled with insults such as "you fucking idiot"?

Because you deserve it, you fucking idiot.

[vicdan]

I fail to see what diff it makes

You said that this might be relatesd to lamarckian evolution. it clearly is not. you made shit up and tried to pass it as analysis. That's the difference it makes.

Nevertheless, I can see where you mite find yourself in a universe which permits such certainty as you display. The reality I live on is full of ambiguities, and doubt is commonly warranted. I should have remembered that your reality is different, and you regard everyone who does not live on it as a fool.

No, I regard as fools only those who refuse to think, refuse to inform themselves, refuse to face reality. Like entirely too many people here for example, yourself included.

I have no problem with being disagreed with, criticized, etc; but I demand that it be informed and intelligent disagreement and/or criticism, not pea-brained conspiracy theories and ignorant NewAgey bloviation.

There is plenty of real doubt and uncertainty int he world; but you don't even come close to scratching its surface. You are playing tiddly-winks when others are playing Go.

[hsandman]

Indeed. Glad to see we have some sort of understanding there.

And yet you believe absurdities eagerly...

I have theoretical constructs that are in constant pruning and influx of new imaginative ideas... I don't try to shut down debates no matter how absurd (from my point of view) pinchos posts sometimes might be, sometimes he does come up with insightful views. Latching on to one world view because of (insert your ad hominem) and holding to it for dear life is not a display of principles or good sense, it's neurotic.

"a just society must be tolerant; therefore, the intolerant must be tolerated, for otherwise, the society would then be intolerant, and so unjust. However, Rawls qualifies this by insisting that society and its social institutions have a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance. Hence, the intolerant must be tolerated but only insofar as they do not endanger the tolerant society and its institutions."
(Source)

You, and I, are the society, vic. I am intolerant towards corporatism and the people who are influenced by it dogmas, because I believe these unethical organisms/institutions are bigoted, intolerant and are hurting the society.

Tolerance starts with you and me, vic. It has always been tit-for-tat game.

Edit: I don't debate to be right, vic. I debate to find out who is right.

[vicdan]

I have theoretical constructs that are in constant pruning and influx of new imaginative ideas

like your 'theoretical constructs' about magnets?..

Latching on to one world view because of (insert your ad hominem) and holding to it for dear life is not a display of principles or good sense, it's neurotic.

And yet this is exactly what you do; and furthermore, the worldview you latch on to is insane.

You, and I, are the society, vic. I am intolerant towards corporatism and the people who are influenced by it dogmas, because I believe these unethical organisms/institutions are bigoted, intolerant and are hurting the society.

And i am intolerant towards morons who have no regard for truth.

Edit: I don't debate to be right, vic. I debate to find out who is right.

BS. You 'debate' to defend your prejudices -- like your views on magnetism and other stupidity of that sort.

[Pincho Paxton]

The stupid, it HURTS!!!

I don't feel the pain, for I have little stupidity. lol!

Anyway, back to topic.

If you don't believe my thread, you must decide when communication ends between objects. We know that all animal life communicates. We can see that plant life communicates, like grass that is cut causes other grass nearby to become toxic, and less likely to be eaten. You just have to reduce the sentience down through the number of particles available to each object. But I find it will not completely go away. It will just reduce in measurability. Down to particle = 1 sentience measure.

[hsandman]

And i am intolerant towards morons who have no regard for truth.

Wallow in your righteousness then, I am done disturbing you.

[Shardrol]

You write about causing suffering as if it's a bad thing

it's not? Great. Let's make you suffer from having a sandpaper-wrapped baseball bat shoved up your ass. Or perhaps you would like to tell us how genocide is not a bad thing?

I believe you misunderstood my point, which was: if, as you claim, you see causing suffering as a bad thing, why do you not take more care not to cause suffering yourself?

so why is almost every single one of your posts riddled with insults such as "you fucking idiot"?

Because you deserve it, you fucking idiot.

Since this reasoning could also be applied to shoving a sandpaper-wrapped baseball bat up someone's ass it doesn't really address the question.

[vicdan]

OK, let me put it this way. i am a selfless sage who is trying to give you an opportunity to re-examine your stupidity. It's for your own good. :D

[Pincho Paxton]

OK, let me put it this way. i am a selfless sage who is trying to give you an opportunity to re-examine your stupidity. It's for your own good. :D

But I see you in the same way. I just know I can't give you the opportunity to re-examine your stupidity, because you are not as mallible as an open minded person. You are a closed minded IQ intellect, with memories of false science filling a billion of your brain cells. IQ intellect is not good enough I'm afraid. Whereas I have probably more brain cells, but lower memory capacity, and open mindedness. Like each brain cell can be used as many times as I like, rather than imprinted with Hard-Data.

[David Quinn]

OK, let me put it this way. i am a selfless sage who is trying to give you an opportunity to re-examine your stupidity. It's for your own good. :D

No, it is definitely a mental sickness on your part.

Just as the homophobic person lashes out at the gay community because he fears he might be gay himself, you lash out at those you perceive as fundamentalists because you fear (quite rightly) that you are a fundamentalist also. The dynamic is exactly the same.

-