Re: Another Puppy On sci.electronics.basics Gets House Trained
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Posted by John Fields on August 13, 2008, 7:45 pm
Please log in for more thread options On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:15:14 GMT, "Kevin Aylward" >>>>> hence you haven't shown that new ideas are not due to a random
>>>>> process. >>
>>>> There are no new ideas in the sense you are using the term.
>>
>>> Of course there are. Lots of them.
>>
>>>> Name even just one. You cant.
>>
>>> The speed of light is an invariant.
>>
>> OK, but that clearly didnt arise thru any random process. >
>The statement that light is invariant is certainly consistent with a >randomly generated process. The idea is certainly not derivable, so where >did the idea come from? > >>
>>> It is an independent axiom of physics that is not derivable from any
>>> other law of physics. >>
>> Yes, but clearly didnt arise thru any random process. >> >>> The shrodinger equation of quantum mechanics. It is an independent
>>> axiom of physics that is not derivable from any other law of physics. >>
>> OK, but that clearly didnt arise thru any random process. >> >>> The Einstien Field equations. For eaxmple,
>>> http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html, setting the >>> Stress-Energy or Energy-Momentum Tensor equal to the contracted >>> Riemann tensor, was guesswork.It is an independent axiom of physics >>> that is not derivable from any other law of physics. >>
>> OK, but that clearly didnt arise thru any random process. >> >>> Of course, there are some aspects of these physic laws that are
>>> based and developed on prior ideas, but each one of the above has a >>> *unique* component, >>
>> So does any significant new idea. >> >>> that is quite impossible to derive from existing knowledge.
>>
>>> It is educated guess work.
>>
>> Nope, no guess involved. They did in fact explain what was >> unexplainable without them. >>> That is, *Selection* (non random) of a randomly generated component,
>>
>> Nope, nothing like that at all on the components. >> >>> from which, these non-random selected, random variations are copied
>>> on to generate more derivable information, >>
>> Nope, no random variations involved at all. Completely non random in >> fact. >>> from which, new ideas may be randomly generated from etc.
>>
>> Nope, no randomness present at all. >> >>> Its a Darwinian Algorithm.
>>
>> Nope, nothing like it. >> >
>Unfortunately, you simple have not understood anything. Mere denial achieves >nothing for your viewpoint. > >Everyone of the above are mathematical concepts that did not exist untill >invented. To quote Einstein: > >"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, >however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. > >You seem to confuse that fact that there is Darwinian Selection going on. >Most randomly generated ideas are filtered first. A bit like white noise >going through a filter, effectively producing an oscillator. This gives the >niave impression, that the new ideas that actually make it through the >filter, are designed by construction, or derivable, becuse you dont get to >see the bad ones. > >You really need to think a lot deeper on where new ideas actualy come from. --- Indeed. In the dawn of our time, a stretched sinew grabbed at and released during the slaughter after a successful hunt or, during feeding, would have emitted a tone/tones which led to the development of all our present-day stringed instruments. Initially, a truly random occurrence which one of our ancestors picked up and capitalized on. JF | |||||||||||||
|
Posted by Rod Speed on August 13, 2008, 7:51 pm
Please log in for more thread options > On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:15:14 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
> >> Rod Speed wrote:
>> >>>>>> hence you haven't shown that new ideas are not due to a random
>>>>>> process. >>> >>>>> There are no new ideas in the sense you are using the term. >>> >>>> Of course there are. Lots of them. >>> >>>>> Name even just one. You cant. >>> >>>> The speed of light is an invariant. >>> >>> OK, but that clearly didnt arise thru any random process. >>
>> The statement that light is invariant is certainly consistent with a >> randomly generated process. The idea is certainly not derivable, so >> where did the idea come from? >> >>>
>>>> It is an independent axiom of physics that is not derivable from >>>> any other law of physics. >>> >>> Yes, but clearly didnt arise thru any random process. >>> >>>> The shrodinger equation of quantum mechanics. It is an independent >>>> axiom of physics that is not derivable from any other law of >>>> physics. >>> >>> OK, but that clearly didnt arise thru any random process. >>> >>>> The Einstien Field equations. For eaxmple, >>>> http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html, setting the >>>> Stress-Energy or Energy-Momentum Tensor equal to the contracted >>>> Riemann tensor, was guesswork.It is an independent axiom of physics >>>> that is not derivable from any other law of physics. >>> >>> OK, but that clearly didnt arise thru any random process. >>> >>>> Of course, there are some aspects of these physic laws that are >>>> based and developed on prior ideas, but each one of the above has a >>>> *unique* component, >>> >>> So does any significant new idea. >>> >>>> that is quite impossible to derive from existing knowledge. >>> >>>> It is educated guess work. >>> >>> Nope, no guess involved. They did in fact explain what was >>> unexplainable without them. >>>> That is, *Selection* (non random) of a randomly generated >>>> component, >>> >>> Nope, nothing like that at all on the components. >>> >>>> from which, these non-random selected, random variations are copied >>>> on to generate more derivable information, >>> >>> Nope, no random variations involved at all. Completely non random in >>> fact. >>>> from which, new ideas may be randomly generated from etc. >>> >>> Nope, no randomness present at all. >>> >>>> Its a Darwinian Algorithm. >>> >>> Nope, nothing like it. >>> >>
>> Unfortunately, you simple have not understood anything. Mere denial >> achieves nothing for your viewpoint. >> >> Everyone of the above are mathematical concepts that did not exist >> untill invented. To quote Einstein: >> >> "Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, >> however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. >> >> You seem to confuse that fact that there is Darwinian Selection >> going on. Most randomly generated ideas are filtered first. A bit >> like white noise going through a filter, effectively producing an >> oscillator. This gives the niave impression, that the new ideas that >> actually make it through the filter, are designed by construction, >> or derivable, becuse you dont get to see the bad ones. >> >> You really need to think a lot deeper on where new ideas actualy >> come from. >
> --- > Indeed. > > In the dawn of our time, a stretched sinew grabbed at and released > during the slaughter after a successful hunt or, during feeding, would > have emitted a tone/tones which led to the development of all our > present-day stringed instruments. > > Initially, a truly random occurrence which one of our ancestors picked > up and capitalized on. It wasnt RANDOM OCCURRENCES being discussed, what was being discussed was the stupid claim that its RANDOM PROCESSES IN THE MIND OF THE INVENTOR that are responsible for new ideas. | |||||||||||||
|
Posted by John Fields on August 14, 2008, 4:59 am
Please log in for more thread options
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:51:12 +1000, "Rod Speed" >> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:15:14 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
>>> You really need to think a lot deeper on where new ideas actualy
>>> come from. >>
>> --- >> Indeed. >> >> In the dawn of our time, a stretched sinew grabbed at and released >> during the slaughter after a successful hunt or, during feeding, would >> have emitted a tone/tones which led to the development of all our >> present-day stringed instruments. >> >> Initially, a truly random occurrence which one of our ancestors picked >> up and capitalized on. >
>It wasnt RANDOM OCCURRENCES being discussed, what was being >discussed was the stupid claim that its RANDOM PROCESSES IN THE >MIND OF THE INVENTOR that are responsible for new ideas. --- I see. Then the very first idea didn't happen randomly, one of our ancestors made conscious plans and thought: "OK, now I'm going to have an idea." JF | |||||||||||||
|
Posted by Rod Speed on August 14, 2008, 5:36 am
Please log in for more thread options
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:51:12 +1000, "Rod Speed"
> >>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:15:14 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
>
>>>> You really need to think a lot deeper on where new ideas actualy
>>>> come from. >>> >>> --- >>> Indeed. >>> >>> In the dawn of our time, a stretched sinew grabbed at and released >>> during the slaughter after a successful hunt or, during feeding, >>> would have emitted a tone/tones which led to the development of >>> all our present-day stringed instruments. >>> >>> Initially, a truly random occurrence which one of our ancestors >>> picked up and capitalized on. >>
>> It wasnt RANDOM OCCURRENCES being discussed, what was being >> discussed was the stupid claim that its RANDOM PROCESSES IN THE >> MIND OF THE INVENTOR that are responsible for new ideas. > I see.
Nope, you never ever do. > Then the very first idea didn't happen randomly, one of our ancestors
> made conscious plans and thought: "OK, now I'm going to have an idea." Pathetic. | |||||||||||||
|
Posted by Rich Grise on August 15, 2008, 2:00 pm
Please log in for more thread options
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 03:59:31 -0500, John Fields wrote: > On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:51:12 +1000, "Rod Speed"
>>
>>It wasnt RANDOM OCCURRENCES being discussed, what was being >>discussed was the stupid claim that its RANDOM PROCESSES IN THE >>MIND OF THE INVENTOR that are responsible for new ideas. >
> --- > I see. > > Then the very first idea didn't happen randomly, one of our ancestors > made conscious plans and thought: "OK, now I'm going to have an idea." Ideas come from the Aether - the brain is only an interface. ;-) Cheers! Rich | |||||||||||||
>