Text 881, 143 rader
Skriven 2004-11-25 16:26:00 av John Edser (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: Publishing scientific
=================================




 Tim Tyler <tim@tt1lock.org>

> > > > JE:-
> > > > I'm afraid TT is Incorrect.
> > > > Within Newtonian mechanics Mass (m) must
> > > > remain constant with velocity which in this
> > > > case is simply implied by acceleration [...]

> > > TT:-
> > > Mass is a constant?!?
> > > If so what is its value? ;-)

> > JE:-
> > Mass can be partitioned and remain a
> > constant. The starting value of (m) must remain
> > exactly the same as its finishing value when no
> > mass is added or subtracted.

> TT:-
> Yes - and what about when mass is added or subtracted
> as - for instance - in a space rocket?
> F = ma applies equally well to space rockets as
> other objects (though of course you have to integrate).

JE:-
A force does not have to carried within a
rocket as a fuel that is reduced in mass to
produce the force e.g. just throwing a stone.
The fact that the mass of the fuel in the
rocket becomes less as it burns has
absolutely nothing to do with the problem.
 
> > > TT:-
> > > So: is the second law of thermodynamics
> > > "RATIONAL"?
> > > It's expression doesn't seem to contain any
> > > constants I can see: it's expression is
> > > usually of the form delta-S > 0.
> > > ...and yet it is easy to imagine the
> > > second law being false - i.e. it is
> > > a testable piece of physics.

> > JE:-
> > The 2nd law can be usefully sketched
> > out as:-
> > Time's Arrow --> stuff goes wrong --> Entropy
> > Entropy represents a maximand of physics
> > where entropy must always be maximised.
> > Local entropy decreases caused by living
> > systems are paid for by local increases.
> > Thus life is 100% neutral to the entropy
> > maximand. This being the case Darwin's
> > maximand fitness does not contradict
> > physics.

> TT:-
> At the end of all this, I'm still not clear
> about whether you agree that the second law of
> thermodynamics has no constants in it - and
> therefore is not testable science -
> according to your world view.

JE:-
Any maximand can be represented as a
constant within a mathematical expression.
The fact that entropy must always be maximised,
no exceptions, means that entropy is 
always increasing. In a mathematical
expression this could be represented
as a constant.

> > > TT:-
> > > For instance I am more likely to roll at least one six if
> > > I throw three dice rather than two.
> > > That statement has no constants in it - but it is a) accurate
> > > in this universe, and b) possible to subject to experimental testing.

> > JE:-
> > Probabilities attempt to measure a constant
> > by approximation. It is a guessed constant
> > that allows the rationality of probability.
> > The guessed maximand in your example is the
> > largest probability that you will throw a six.
> > Without this maximand which will approach
> > a constant value the more you test it,
> > the whole thing is just irrational.

> TT:-
> So, to formalise this, for dice of all types:
>   p_one_or_more_six(n dice) > p_one_or_more_six(m dice) when n > m
> Are you claiming that that statement has a "guessed" constant
> in it?  Therefore it is an acceptable scientific statement?

JE:-
The constant just represents a proposed maximand for the
problem which in this case is the largest probability
that you will throw a six. Your stated aim was to maximise
the chance of throwing a six. Without this teleological
act the action becomes irrational. Applying statistics
in just a random way is uttery pointless. A mind
is not required to produce a maximand but
a maximand is required to produce a mind. In 
nature, natural maximands only simulate teleological 
acts.  A naive mind requires a god because maximands
(which remain entirely hidden to such a mind) seem to 
act like a god.

Hamilton's Rule deleted the maximal fitness
of the actor which represented a refutable 
Darwinian maximand fitness via the common 
Neo Darwinian process of modeling 
over-simplification. Since the
rule contains no other maximand and has always 
been employed as a stand
alone fitness accounting device no other
maximand is even implied. This being the 
case Hamilton's rule remains irrational
and is misused to measure when organism 
fitness altruism can evolve.


Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser@tpg.com.au
---
ū RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info@bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2á˙* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 11/25/04 4:26:44 PM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)