Bruno, I have no argument with you. Let me insert a remark into your text below (in *large font bold italics*) John
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > Hi John, > > > On 19 Feb 2013, at 23:28, John Mikes wrote: > > Craig, it seems we engaged in a fruitful discussion- thank you. > > I want to reflect to *a few* concepts only from it to clarify MY stance. > First my use of *a 'model'.* There are different models, from the sexy > young females over the math-etc. descriptions of theoretical concepts (some > not so sexy). - What I (after Robert Rosen?) use by this word is an extract > of something, we may not know in toto. Close to an 'Occamized' version, but > "cut" mostly by ignorance of the 'rest of it', not for added clarity. > Applied to whatever we know TODAY about the world. Or: we THINK WE KNOW. > > > > A scientist know nothing. Just nothing, not even his own consciousness. > > In science we have only beliefs, and the best we can hope, is to refute > them, by making them clear enough. > > I insist on this because there is a widespread misconsception in popular > science, but also among many materialist scientists (= many scientists), > that we can know something "scientifically", but that is provably wrong > with comp, and plausiibly wrong with common sense. > > A scientist who make public his knowledge is a pseudo-scientist, or a > pseudo-religious person, or is simply mad. > *Or a Nobel Prize winner.* > > There is always an interrogation mark after any theory. Theories are > beliefs, never public knowledge. Even 1+1=2. > But we can (temporally) agree on some theories. We have to do that to > refute them, and learn. > > Bruno > *(And I wrote: "We THINK we know")* > > > > > * > You mention 'statistical' in connection with adaptation. I deny the > validity of statistics (and so: of probability) because it depends on the > borderlines to observe in "counting" the items. 1000 years ago (or maybe > yesterday) such boderlines were different, consequently different > statistics came up with different chances of occurrence in them (not even > mentioning the indifference of WHEN all those chances may materialize). > * > *"...within a looped continuum of perceived causality..." * > Perceived causality is restricted to the 'model' content, while it may be > open to be entailed by instigators beyond our present knowledge. > Furthermore (in the flimsy concept we have about 'time' I cannot see a > 'loop' - only a propagating curve as everything changes by the time we > think to 'close' the loop (like the path of a planet as the Sun moves). > * > *"...I couldn't agree with you more. That's a big part of what my TOE is > all about http://multisenserealism.com/8-matter-energy/..."* > Your TOE? - MY FOOT. - Agnostically we are so far from even speaking about > * 'everything'* that the consecutively observable levels of gathering > some knowledge (adjusted to our ever evolving mental capabilities into some > personal 'mini-solipsism' - different always for everyone) is a great > pretension of the human conventional sciences. > (Don't take it personally, please). We LIVE and THINK within (my) model. > Whatever is beyond is unknowable. But it affects the model content. > The URL was an enjoyable reading - with Stephen's addition to it. > > Best regards > John Mikes > * > * > * > * > On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> I was so impressed with this page >> http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#a1 >> >> that I thought it was worth listing a few here: >> >> *MISCONCEPTION: Natural selection involves organisms trying to adapt.* >> >> *MISCONCEPTION: Natural selection acts for the good of the species.* >> >> *MISCONCEPTION: The fittest organisms in a population are those that are >> strongest, healthiest, fastest, and/or largest.* >> >> *MISCONCEPTION: Natural selection is about survival of the very fittest >> individuals in a population.* >> >> *MISCONCEPTION: All traits of organisms are adaptations.* >> >> *MISCONCEPTION: Evolutionary theory implies that life evolved (and >> continues to evolve) randomly, or by chance. >> >> **MISCONCEPTION: Evolution results in progress; organisms are always >> getting better through evolution.* >> >> ** >> >> * >> * >> >> * >> * >> >> -- >> 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 >> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
