Re: Mathematics is Physics
I would agree with you that my Darwin's quote does not express all the Darwin theory. The point was rather that among what Darwin has wrote one can find such statements as well. I should say that I took this quote from Lewontin's review on the book Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini What Darwin Got Wrong http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/may/27/not-so-natural-selection/ In the book you will find more references on how biologists define natural selection. In Lewontin's review by the way you will find similar critique of adaptationism. I personally like a document Units and Levels of Selection http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/selection-units/ where you will find a modern review of what biologists say. Let me quote from Section 2.4 The Manifestor of Adaptation Question about engineering adaptation. Some, if not most, of this confusion is a result of a very important but neglected duality in the meaning of “adaptation” (in spite of useful discussions in Brandon 1978, Burian 1983, Krimbas 1984, Sober 1984). Sometimes “adaptation” is taken to signify any trait at all that is a direct result of a selection process at that level. In this view, any trait that arises directly from a selection process is claimed to be, by definition, an adaptation (e.g. Sober 1984; Brandon 1985, 1990; Arnold and Fristrup 1982). Sometimes, on the other hand, the term “adaptation” is reserved for traits that are “good for” their owners, that is, those that provide a “better fit” with the environment, and that intuitively satisfy some notion of “good engineering.”[7] These two meanings of adaptation, the selection-product and engineering definitions respectively, are distinct, and in some cases, incompatible. Note that engineering adaptation is exactly selection for. Hence Fodor has not made it up. This is what you find reading at least some famous biologists. In general, the starting point for Fodor were explanations as follows ‘We like telling stories because telling stories exercises the imagination and an imagination would have been a good thing for a hunter-gatherer to have.’ It is a typical explanation based on natural selection that you meet quite often nowadays. It is also similar to what was written in the paper on mathematics and physics. Yet, to prove it one must assume that natural selection can select for. Otherwise it will not work. The reason is related to coextensive traits. Provided one would like to prove the statement above by natural selection, one must explain selection of a particular coextensive trait. Yet, natural selection cannot differentiate coextensive traits, as they occur in nature simultaneously. Evgenii Am 25.08.2015 um 20:29 schrieb meekerdb: On 8/25/2015 11:09 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: That's what most comments to Fodor's argument look like: this is false because it must be false. But this king of answers are not that impressive. It is up to you to believe that Fodor is wrong but if you what to prove it, you must invest more time. This is for example how Fodor describes natural selection: One is its familiar historical account of our phylogeny; the other is the theory of natural selection, which purports to characterise the mechanism not just of the formation of species, but of all evolutionary changes in the innate properties of organisms. According to selection theory, a creature’s ‘phenotype’ – the inventory of its heritable traits, including, notably, its heritable mental traits – is an adaptation to the demands of its ecological situation. But that not what evolution says. If it did it would have implied that Darwin's finches would be a single species, since they were all in the same environment. Let's see Fodor cite some reputable evolutionary biologist who says this. Adaptation is a name for the process by which environmental variables select among the creatures in a population the ones whose heritable properties are most fit for survival and reproduction. So environmental selection for fitness is (perhaps plus or minus a bit) the process par excellence that prunes the evolutionary tree. There is more to this end in his paper. Finally, this is what Darwin writes about natural selection in On the Origin of Species: [natural selection] is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good…. This is exactly what Fodor rejects. Darwin is the first word on evolution, not the last, and you're cherry picking from him. He also recognized sexual selection and neutral, random variation. Fodor writes, Hence natural selection should not only select a trait, rather it must select for it. Which is just his fantasy interpretation of evolution. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
Re: Mathematics is Physics
That's what most comments to Fodor's argument look like: this is false because it must be false. But this king of answers are not that impressive. It is up to you to believe that Fodor is wrong but if you what to prove it, you must invest more time. This is for example how Fodor describes natural selection: One is its familiar historical account of our phylogeny; the other is the theory of natural selection, which purports to characterise the mechanism not just of the formation of species, but of all evolutionary changes in the innate properties of organisms. According to selection theory, a creature’s ‘phenotype’ – the inventory of its heritable traits, including, notably, its heritable mental traits – is an adaptation to the demands of its ecological situation. Adaptation is a name for the process by which environmental variables select among the creatures in a population the ones whose heritable properties are most fit for survival and reproduction. So environmental selection for fitness is (perhaps plus or minus a bit) the process par excellence that prunes the evolutionary tree. There is more to this end in his paper. Finally, this is what Darwin writes about natural selection in On the Origin of Species: [natural selection] is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good…. This is exactly what Fodor rejects. Evgenii Am 24.08.2015 um 20:10 schrieb meekerdb: On 8/24/2015 10:27 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Am 23.08.2015 um 19:47 schrieb meekerdb: On 8/23/2015 12:07 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... The comments do not answer Fodor's argument. To this end, you can read his answer to comments. I read his answer and it's silly. He says that Darwin's explanation of why polar bears are white is incoherent because the natural selection of white polar bears doesn't entail Darwin's explanation. But that's silly because scientific explanations are never entailed by the experimental evidence they explain. To understand Fodor's answer it is necessary to understand his argument. Shortly: 1) Natural selection is assumed to be unintentional. It just happens but it does not has a goal. 2) The existence of coextensive traits in the organism is the rule. Hence natural selection should not only select a trait, rather it must select for. But that's Fodor's made up, imaginary version of natural selection. Natural selection isn't required to select for some trait. It only means that given a situation some traits lead to more successful reproduction than others. Fodor is taking a metaphorical phrase, reinterpreting it anthropomorphically, and then saying, See that phrase doesn't apply. Brent 3) Select for is a part of an intentional process. Hence according to the point 1, natural selection cannot select for. Whiteness of a polar bear is an coextensive trait. To select it means to select it for. Natural selection cannot do it. Well, one has also to define natural selection more carefully, as it happens that different people understand what natural selection is differently. Fodor's definition to this end is in the paper. Evgenii -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Mathematics is Physics
On 8/25/2015 11:09 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: That's what most comments to Fodor's argument look like: this is false because it must be false. But this king of answers are not that impressive. It is up to you to believe that Fodor is wrong but if you what to prove it, you must invest more time. This is for example how Fodor describes natural selection: One is its familiar historical account of our phylogeny; the other is the theory of natural selection, which purports to characterise the mechanism not just of the formation of species, but of all evolutionary changes in the innate properties of organisms. According to selection theory, a creature’s ‘phenotype’ – the inventory of its heritable traits, including, notably, its heritable mental traits – is an adaptation to the demands of its ecological situation. But that not what evolution says. If it did it would have implied that Darwin's finches would be a single species, since they were all in the same environment. Let's see Fodor cite some reputable evolutionary biologist who says this. Adaptation is a name for the process by which environmental variables select among the creatures in a population the ones whose heritable properties are most fit for survival and reproduction. So environmental selection for fitness is (perhaps plus or minus a bit) the process par excellence that prunes the evolutionary tree. There is more to this end in his paper. Finally, this is what Darwin writes about natural selection in On the Origin of Species: [natural selection] is daily and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good…. This is exactly what Fodor rejects. Darwin is the first word on evolution, not the last, and you're cherry picking from him. He also recognized sexual selection and neutral, random variation. Fodor writes, Hence natural selection should not only select a trait, rather it must select for it. Which is just his fantasy interpretation of evolution. Brent Evgenii Am 24.08.2015 um 20:10 schrieb meekerdb: On 8/24/2015 10:27 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Am 23.08.2015 um 19:47 schrieb meekerdb: On 8/23/2015 12:07 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... The comments do not answer Fodor's argument. To this end, you can read his answer to comments. I read his answer and it's silly. He says that Darwin's explanation of why polar bears are white is incoherent because the natural selection of white polar bears doesn't entail Darwin's explanation. But that's silly because scientific explanations are never entailed by the experimental evidence they explain. To understand Fodor's answer it is necessary to understand his argument. Shortly: 1) Natural selection is assumed to be unintentional. It just happens but it does not has a goal. 2) The existence of coextensive traits in the organism is the rule. Hence natural selection should not only select a trait, rather it must select for. But that's Fodor's made up, imaginary version of natural selection. Natural selection isn't required to select for some trait. It only means that given a situation some traits lead to more successful reproduction than others. Fodor is taking a metaphorical phrase, reinterpreting it anthropomorphically, and then saying, See that phrase doesn't apply. Brent 3) Select for is a part of an intentional process. Hence according to the point 1, natural selection cannot select for. Whiteness of a polar bear is an coextensive trait. To select it means to select it for. Natural selection cannot do it. Well, one has also to define natural selection more carefully, as it happens that different people understand what natural selection is differently. Fodor's definition to this end is in the paper. Evgenii -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Mathematics is Physics
Am 23.08.2015 um 19:47 schrieb meekerdb: On 8/23/2015 12:07 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... The comments do not answer Fodor's argument. To this end, you can read his answer to comments. I read his answer and it's silly. He says that Darwin's explanation of why polar bears are white is incoherent because the natural selection of white polar bears doesn't entail Darwin's explanation. But that's silly because scientific explanations are never entailed by the experimental evidence they explain. To understand Fodor's answer it is necessary to understand his argument. Shortly: 1) Natural selection is assumed to be unintentional. It just happens but it does not has a goal. 2) The existence of coextensive traits in the organism is the rule. Hence natural selection should not only select a trait, rather it must select for. 3) Select for is a part of an intentional process. Hence according to the point 1, natural selection cannot select for. Whiteness of a polar bear is an coextensive trait. To select it means to select it for. Natural selection cannot do it. Well, one has also to define natural selection more carefully, as it happens that different people understand what natural selection is differently. Fodor's definition to this end is in the paper. Evgenii -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Mathematics is Physics
On 8/24/2015 10:27 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Am 23.08.2015 um 19:47 schrieb meekerdb: On 8/23/2015 12:07 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... The comments do not answer Fodor's argument. To this end, you can read his answer to comments. I read his answer and it's silly. He says that Darwin's explanation of why polar bears are white is incoherent because the natural selection of white polar bears doesn't entail Darwin's explanation. But that's silly because scientific explanations are never entailed by the experimental evidence they explain. To understand Fodor's answer it is necessary to understand his argument. Shortly: 1) Natural selection is assumed to be unintentional. It just happens but it does not has a goal. 2) The existence of coextensive traits in the organism is the rule. Hence natural selection should not only select a trait, rather it must select for. But that's Fodor's made up, imaginary version of natural selection. Natural selection isn't required to select for some trait. It only means that given a situation some traits lead to more successful reproduction than others. Fodor is taking a metaphorical phrase, reinterpreting it anthropomorphically, and then saying, See that phrase doesn't apply. Brent 3) Select for is a part of an intentional process. Hence according to the point 1, natural selection cannot select for. Whiteness of a polar bear is an coextensive trait. To select it means to select it for. Natural selection cannot do it. Well, one has also to define natural selection more carefully, as it happens that different people understand what natural selection is differently. Fodor's definition to this end is in the paper. Evgenii -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Mathematics is Physics
On 23 Aug 2015, at 09:07, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Am 23.08.2015 um 00:27 schrieb meekerdb: On 8/22/2015 9:07 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: An argument based on a selection might be empty. See Jerry Fodor, Why Pigs Don’t Have Wings http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/jerry-fodor/why-pigs-dont-have-wings I guess you might get that impression if you read Fodor. But I suggest you read the comments first and save yourself the trouble. The comments do not answer Fodor's argument. To this end, you can read his answer to comments. I will read this when I have more time. I think I agree partially with Fodor. The subject might be related to the old ASSA versus RSSA (absolute versus relative self-sampling assumption). I think selection is based on a version of the ASSA, and can be used to explain a posteriori geographical factors, but it becomes close to God-of-the- gap argument when used to explain the origin of the physical laws (but I need to read Fodor more attentively to be sure, and for the next days I will be to much busy to do that at ease). Bruno Evgenii -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Mathematics is Physics
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 07:27:46PM +0200, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Am 23.08.2015 um 19:47 schrieb meekerdb: On 8/23/2015 12:07 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... The comments do not answer Fodor's argument. To this end, you can read his answer to comments. I read his answer and it's silly. He says that Darwin's explanation of why polar bears are white is incoherent because the natural selection of white polar bears doesn't entail Darwin's explanation. But that's silly because scientific explanations are never entailed by the experimental evidence they explain. To understand Fodor's answer it is necessary to understand his argument. Shortly: 1) Natural selection is assumed to be unintentional. It just happens but it does not has a goal. 2) The existence of coextensive traits in the organism is the rule. Hence natural selection should not only select a trait, rather it must select for. 3) Select for is a part of an intentional process. Hence according to the point 1, natural selection cannot select for. Whiteness of a polar bear is an coextensive trait. To select it means to select it for. Natural selection cannot do it. Well, one has also to define natural selection more carefully, as it happens that different people understand what natural selection is differently. Fodor's definition to this end is in the paper. Sounds like pure and utter sophistry to me. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Mathematics is Physics
On 8/23/2015 12:07 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Am 23.08.2015 um 00:27 schrieb meekerdb: On 8/22/2015 9:07 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: An argument based on a selection might be empty. See Jerry Fodor, Why Pigs Don’t Have Wings http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/jerry-fodor/why-pigs-dont-have-wings I guess you might get that impression if you read Fodor. But I suggest you read the comments first and save yourself the trouble. The comments do not answer Fodor's argument. To this end, you can read his answer to comments. I read his answer and it's silly. He says that Darwin's explanation of why polar bears are white is incoherent because the natural selection of white polar bears doesn't entail Darwin's explanation. But that's silly because scientific explanations are never entailed by the experimental evidence they explain. Brent -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Mathematics is Physics
Am 23.08.2015 um 00:27 schrieb meekerdb: On 8/22/2015 9:07 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: An argument based on a selection might be empty. See Jerry Fodor, Why Pigs Don’t Have Wings http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/jerry-fodor/why-pigs-dont-have-wings I guess you might get that impression if you read Fodor. But I suggest you read the comments first and save yourself the trouble. The comments do not answer Fodor's argument. To this end, you can read his answer to comments. Evgenii -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Mathematics is Physics
On 8/22/2015 9:07 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: An argument based on a selection might be empty. See Jerry Fodor, Why Pigs Don’t Have Wings http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/jerry-fodor/why-pigs-dont-have-wings I guess you might get that impression if you read Fodor. But I suggest you read the comments first and save yourself the trouble. Brent -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Mathematics is Physics
An argument based on a selection might be empty. See Jerry Fodor, Why Pigs Don’t Have Wings http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/jerry-fodor/why-pigs-dont-have-wings Evgenii Am Mittwoch, 19. August 2015 02:18:00 UTC+2 schrieb Brent: I like Wenmackers essay too. http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Wenmackers_Wenmackers_FQXiE.pdf Brent On 8/18/2015 3:25 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.02770 (reverse of Tegmark) cf. http://phil.elte.hu/leszabo/matfil/2015-2016-1/ - pt -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
R: Re: Mathematics is Physics
I forgot to mention Carlo Rovelli here http://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.1v1.pdf Messaggio originale Da: everything-list@googlegroups.com Data: 19/08/2015 8.40 A: everything-list@googlegroups.com Ogg: R: Re: Mathematics is Physics See also Arnold here http://pauli.uni-muenster.de/~munsteg/arnold.html -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
R: Re: Mathematics is Physics
See also Arnold here http://pauli.uni-muenster.de/~munsteg/arnold.html Messaggio originale Da: meeke...@verizon.net Data: 19/08/2015 2.17 A: undisclosed-recipients:; Ogg: Re: Mathematics is Physics I like Wenmackers essay too. http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Wenmackers_Wenmackers_FQXiE.pdf Brent On 8/18/2015 3:25 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.02770 (reverse of Tegmark) cf. http://phil.elte.hu/leszabo/matfil/2015-2016-1/ - pt -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Mathematics is Physics
I like Wenmackers essay too. http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Wenmackers_Wenmackers_FQXiE.pdf Brent On 8/18/2015 3:25 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.02770 (reverse of Tegmark) cf. http://phil.elte.hu/leszabo/matfil/2015-2016-1/ - pt -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
