On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote:

> There is more to understanding than logic.

If you know the logic behind something then you understand it and if you
understand it you know the logic behind it.

>It says very clearly that the changes are not random - ie, they are
> intentionally edited.

It's not even very clear that these changes exist, it's all very tentative,
and as far as your theories go it does not matter if its random or not
because one thing is certain, if the changes are real one of two things is
true, the changes happened for a reason or the changes did not happen for a

> That's not about analog vs digital,

You said it's not digital, I insist it must be.

>it is about crushing the delusion of the machine metaphor in biology.

Just like everything else a biological effect has a cause or it does not
have a cause, it's deterministic or it's random, it's a cuckoo clock or a
roulette wheel.

> But I'm not my father or grandfather or great grandfather

That's right you are not them and yet you have some of the same genes that
they had, (yeah I know what's coming, genes don't exist either) so the
genes had to make copies of themselves to go into the next generation. If
the copying process had been analog there would be so many errors in your
genes that you'd be dead because the errors are cumulative, but the copying
was digital so you are fine. This Email had to go through a long chain of
copying and retransmitting before you got it but it was all digital so you
can read it, if it had been analog it would be nothing but a big blur.

> Not true. Music companies had a problem with cassettes too.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Taping_Is_Killing_Music. Recording
> devices have always been forbidden at popular movies and concerts.

You only went down one generation in those examples, from a master tape to
copies, good analog can handle a few generations but not dozens, and with
biology you have many millions of generations so it can't be analog.

> There is nothing particularly digital about the folding problem. It is an
> analog process

Bullshit! Every protein ever made starts out in life as a linear sequence
of amino acids like beads on a string, and that linear sequence was
determined by a linear sequence of bases in RNA, and that linear sequence
was determined by the linear sequences of bases in DNA. Its only after the
protein leaves the ribosome does this linear sequence fold up into the
enormously complex shapes of the functional protein. At the temperatures
and pH conditions found in cells any linear protein string with the same
sequence of amino acids ALWAYS folds up into exactly precisely the same
shape. Different sequence different shape, same sequence same shape.

> which occurs through concrete chemical interaction

Certainly, but the same linear sequence of amino acids gives you the exact
same super complex shape that those hyper complex concrete chemical
interactions twist those straight linear strings into. And it's true we are
not very good at calculating from first principles what shape any given
sequence of linear amino acids will twist into because it's so
astronomically complex, but we are getting better and we do know for a fact
that the same sequence always gives the same shape.

And its not like any of this is cutting edge news, its been known since
1953; but I guess it takes time for that sort of scientific information to
trickle down so that even philosophers know about it. Oops sorry I forgot,
information does not exist.

>>  There is not a person on this planet who knows what will happen if
>> you program a computer to find the first even number greater than 2 that
>> is not the sum of two prime numbers and then stop.
> >That can only mean that you are admitting that the brain is not a
> computer.

How on earth do you figure that? A brain can't know what a computer or
other brain will do or even what he himself will do until he does it; and a
computer can't know what another computer or a brain will do or what it
itself will do until it does it.

> It means MWI is born of desperation to preserve the machine metaphor
> of the universe.

All interpretations of the way things behave when they become very very
small are desperate because in that realm things  just act weird, your
interpretation is more desperate than most, you just say "nothing is real";
I think you should add "including this theory".

>>  Quantum mechanics predicts it [the magnetic moment of the electron]
>> will Be 1.00115965246 and that agrees well with the experimental value of
>> 1.00115965221. What does your theory predict the value will be?
> > My theory predicts that electrons seem one way to electronic
> instruments, another way to human brains, and another way to human minds
> interpreting the exterior behavior of electronic instruments.

The difference between a scientific theory of physics and flatulent
philosophical gas is not that one is right and the other wrong but that one
can produce numbers and the other can not. And without numbers there is no
way a physical theory can be proven wrong and if it can't in theory be
proven to be wrong it's not science. If Quantum Mechanics predicted a
number very different from the experimental value of 1.00115965221 then it
would still be a scientific theory it would just be a incorrect scientific
theory. However Quantum Mechanics passed that test with style and jaw
dropping exactitude, but far from passing the test your theory couldn't
even take it because it offers up no numbers for consideration, you were
disqualified before you even reached the starting line, and so all that
remains is gas.

> My theory predicts that there isn't necessarily an electron at all.

Now electrons have joined information and bits and countless other things
on a ever growing list of things that do not exist. And so all of reality,
including knowledge and wisdom, is fizzing away and turning into a
amorphous colorless (but not odorless) gas of no use to anyone or

> On an atomic scale, there is only density and velocity.

On the atomic scale its mass and velocity and electrical charge that are
most important, but at smaller and larger scales other factors dominate.
One scale has just as much a right to call itself "real" as any other. It
would be perfectly true to say that the balloon expanded because there
where more collisions by oxygen and nitrogen molecules on the inner surface
of the balloon than on the outer surface, but it would be every bit as true
to say that the balloon expanded because the pressure inside was greater
than the pressure outside.

>>  If information does not exist then neither does pressure or
>> temperature or entropy because all of them "just" describe the way atoms
>> or groups of atoms behave.
> > Right. They don't exist as a 'simply is' quality, they *insist* is a
> 'seems like quality'.


> It's not digital. Doesn't mean there's not a difference, it means
> there's many subtle shades of difference.

Somehow some people have gotten the silly idea that if it's digital then it
can't be subtle, but your entire Email is digital as is Shakespeare's life
work, and so is the genetic code of every single living thing that has
existed on this planet for the last 3 billion years.

> you move your arm for many reasons, free will is the ability to choose

And you made that choice for a reason or you did not make that choice for a
reason. Whenever I ask you what the ASCII string "free will" means you
never give a coherent answer. I will admit that although you won't say what
it is you are clear about  what you think it is not, it is not
deterministic and it is not not deterministic. But if X is not Y and X is
not not Y then X is gibberish.

> It's more than deterministic. It is making determinations itself.

More gas.

> We make the reason that we use to select our option.

What about that interesting reason that you just made, did you make it for
a reason or did you not make it for a reason? Either answer would satisfy
me, but yet more gas would not.

 John K Clark

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to