On Jan 11, 12:24 am, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

That's a false assumption. I can understand something whether or not
it has logic behind it. I understand red but there is no logic there.
I can know the logic behind something, like quantum mechanics, without
understanding 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
> reason.

That's only true from a passive perspective. If a change 'happens' it
could be because something is deciding for it to happen. They are
providing the reason.

> > That's not about analog vs digital,
> You said it's not digital, I insist it must be.

The facts demonstrate otherwise.

> >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.

That is an arbitrary prejudice. The difference between biology and
physics is specifically that it is neither a cuckoo clock nor a
roulette wheel, it is living flesh; desire and satisfaction. Biology
cannot be understood as a passive phenomenon.

> > 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.

If that were true than an identical twin would be the same person
sometimes. Since that is never true, we know that there is more to it
than that. The genetic code can certainly be thought of as a digital
code, but it's execution is all analog biochemistry.

> > 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.

You were still wrong in your assertion that record companies didn't
care about copying until digital encoding was popular.

I'm not sure that analog is inherently an inferior format for copying,
it may depend on the physics of thw equipment. With sensitive enough
equipment, there is no reason why analog copying couldn't achieve
parity with digital on a human perceptual level.


> > 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.

That's where the folding problem begins. After the transcription is
done. There is nothing digital about how a real molecule folds itself
up. It's nothing like a program being executed from a script, it's
about real world consequences of non-digital physical forces and

>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.

If you change the temperatures and pH conditions, then they do not.
Sequence isn't everything.

> > 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.

The whole genetic process cannot be described as being exclusively
digital or analog. It relies on many ways of making sense on many
interrelated layers of reality.

> 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.

Right. We've known that genetics are more complicated than just
GATTACAGUCCTAA for a long time.

> >>  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.

Any computer should be able to emulate another computer of lesser
capacity and know exactly what it will do. That's what digital is all

> > 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".

My theory is multisense realism. It is all about what is real and in
what sense. Information is not objectively real because it is
subjective phenomena imagined as object, which it isn't.

> >>  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.

That's true for scientific examination of objects, but a catastrophic
failure for anything subjective.

> 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.

The criticism of my ideas always turns to this in the end. I simply
don't have a right to a theory because it doesn't fit your criteria of
how science has to be. Which is exactly what my model predicts. It is
the OMMM range of epistemological extremism. The mirror image of the
inquisitor of religion, seeking to 'disqualify before you even reach
the starting line' to defend the obsolete orthodoxy. OMMM is the chant
of pseudoskepticism as it pretends to put fingers in it's ears and
block out all possible truths other than those which have been
established by authoritative convention.

> > 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
> anything.

Molecules are real. The way groups of molecules feel/see/make sense is
what we call electrons, photons, etc.

> > 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.

Yes, each scale is real in different ways and unreal in different
ways, depending on what level the subject is on.

> >>  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'.
> Gas.

Condescension. Ego.

> > 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.

An email is digital, but only as long as nothing reads it. The moment
something knows that it is reading Shakespeare or that a being feels
something, digital is irrelevant.

> > 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.

Look again. Every time you ask I answer.
Free will is the difference between true/false and Yes!/No!. Free will
is the difference between how voluntary muscle tissue and smooth
muscle tissue is activated. Free will is the difference between
premeditated murder and accidental manslaughter. Free will is the
ordinary process by which we choose to express ourselves in words and
gestures. How many more do you want?

> 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

Your accusation is either intentionally dishonest or some kind of
defensive blindness. I am crystal clear about what free will is and
what it is not. I just explained the difference. Again.

> deterministic and it is not not deterministic. But if X is not Y and X is
> not not Y then X is gibberish.

Free Will is Subjectivity * Significance. Determinism is Objectivity รท
Entropy. Randomness is Insignificance.

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

Now anytime you can't argue with how I have answered your questions,
you can just decline to comment but leave this ad hominem stink where
a comment should be. Oh well. At least you'll always be right - even
when you're wrong.

> > 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.

I made it for many reasons, but none of them are necessary or
sufficient to the final choice that I made.


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