|
|
Post by Stray Pup on Mar 9, 2018 20:46:06 GMT 10
I have always thought this. It's nice to have proof. I also think that Natural Selection is just the same probability outcomes as QM, but larger Link |
|
|
|
Post by Rhianne on Mar 9, 2018 21:01:39 GMT 10
I'm of the opinion that macro-scale statistical mechanics, in the vein of chemistry, biochemistry, life and selection are foils /in spite of/ quantum chaos. In other words, life arises and persists in offense against entropy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stray Pup on Mar 9, 2018 21:08:14 GMT 10
I'm of the opinion that macro-scale statistical mechanics, in the vein of chemistry, biochemistry, life and selection are foils /in spite of/ quantum chaos. In other words, life arises and persists in offense against entropy. yeah well, we will no doubt argue about that as we have before. I know you accept, ultimately, determinism. That ultimately there was no random occurrence. but it's all cool  |
|
|
|
Post by Rhianne on Mar 9, 2018 21:10:56 GMT 10
I'm a statistical determinist - if QM is random it's neither here nor there; at large scales everything becomes overdetermined and predictable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stray Pup on Mar 9, 2018 21:14:08 GMT 10
I'm a statistical determinist - if QM is random it's neither here nor there; at large scales everything becomes overdetermined and predictable. At large scales random becomes fractal. Repetition is inevitable. That's not determined outcome |
|
|
|
Post by Rhianne on Mar 9, 2018 21:18:47 GMT 10
The riser is, it doesn't need to be random to become fractal.
Remember Val's paradox? Randomness cannot be determined or proven, therefor it's (strictly speaking) an unscientific concept.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stray Pup on Mar 9, 2018 21:23:06 GMT 10
COBE, WMAP, and now PLANCK satellites have proved it to around 9 decimal places now? Nothing else comes close? The riser is, it doesn't need to be random to become fractal. Actually it does. Because a determined outcome cannot change. QM could not work Natural Selection could not work And Schroedinger's Cat would be alive for sure, or dead for sure snigger gotta have my din-dins .... Roast belly pork (female breast fat) roast spuds and fresh homemade bread ... all cooked in the one homemade oven on the fire ... yummy |
|
|
|
Post by Stray Pup on Mar 9, 2018 21:25:30 GMT 10
back in an hour, or catchya later alligator
|
|
|
|
Post by Rhianne on Mar 9, 2018 21:30:27 GMT 10
Natural selection is an overdetermined outcome of a stochastic (not random) interplay of many, shall we call them "actors", ie weather, gamma rays, etc. Whether the actors enter stage left or right based on the decay of a particle is irrelevant, there are too many actors doing their thing simultaneously that it might as well be fully deterministic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stray Pup on Mar 9, 2018 22:22:59 GMT 10
Natural selection is an overdetermined outcome of a stochastic (not random) interplay of many, shall we call them "actors", ie weather, gamma rays, etc. Whether the actors enter stage left or right based on the decay of a particle is irrelevant, there are too many actors doing their thing simultaneously that it might as well be fully deterministic. I don't agree ... but ... let me think about what you're saying. You see, if it was deterministic, then it could not adapt, and the future would be visible. |
|
|
|
Post by Rhianne on Mar 9, 2018 23:35:54 GMT 10
Perhaps it is, but you'd need a detailed view of every actor.
Consider a vast herd of Kevin's Tatanka. While the behaviour of a single individual buffalo could perhaps not be discernable or predictable, in a vast herd, the statistically overdetermined action of the group is to migrate over the continent. That is predictable. It's the same with, say, two reactive gasses. Th brownian motion of the individual atoms/cules is unpredictable (for the sake of argument) but if you mix them together you'll get an expected outcome. The mechanics of the atomic and subatomic worlds involved become hysteresistically hidden because of the massive number of actors doing their thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stray Pup on Mar 10, 2018 7:27:15 GMT 10
Perhaps it is, but you'd need a detailed view of every actor. Consider a vast herd of Kevin's Tatanka. While the behaviour of a single individual buffalo could perhaps not be discernable or predictable, in a vast herd, the statistically overdetermined action of the group is to migrate over the continent. That is predictable. It's the same with, say, two reactive gasses. Th brownian motion of the individual atoms/cules is unpredictable (for the sake of argument) but if you mix them together you'll get an expected outcome. The mechanics of the atomic and subatomic worlds involved become hysteresistically hidden because of the massive number of actors doing their thing. That's true. But that's Entropy? Ludwig Boltzman |
|
|
|
Post by Rhianne on Mar 10, 2018 10:00:51 GMT 10
Good morning!
Entropy is just another actor, but at the qm scale.
You could more accurately say that life is a series of attempted violations of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stray Pup on Mar 10, 2018 11:20:18 GMT 10
Good morning! Entropy is just another actor, but at the qm scale. Good Morning  Fail ... Entropy is a collective measurement. Macro. You could more accurately say that life is a series of attempted violations of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I'm not quite sure how to explain this. The 'violations' are not violations at all. The 'violations' are an integral part of Entropy. Each 'violation' or dip towards order creates (outside the dip) greater Entropy overall. And each 'violation' allows another 'violation' within it's 'boundary' and within that, and within that ... and ongoing, no limit ....And this is the process that creates fractal behaviour. Complexity through repetition. Each 'violation' is a temporary loan from the sea of entropy. And it's payback of the loan creates greater disorder (higher entropy) than if the 'violation' had not occurred (given the same time-frame) 'Violations' are selected for. What you see as a violation against the second is actually a requirement. Phew ... don't know if I explained that sensibly. |
|
