Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id HAA10818 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 13 Jan 2001 07:41:55 GMT Message-Id: <200101130744.CAA02264@mail1.lig.bellsouth.net> From: "Joe E. Dees" <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 01:44:31 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: virus: Laying down the law In-reply-to: <005801c07d31$cad378a0$6401a8c0@kharmageddon> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01b) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
From: "John Rappel" <john.rappel@home.com>
To: <virus@lucifer.com>
Subject: virus: Laying down the law
Date sent: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 00:23:56 -0700
Send reply to: virus@lucifer.com
> Rappel's Theory of Scientific Truth:
>
> a = e-1
> --- X t
> e
>
> where a = actual Agreement of Theory with Reality, e = effort expended on
> refining and replacing the theory (generally rated in cumulative scientist
> years - note that this cannot be a negative number, or zero, in our
> universe), and t = experimentally measured accuracy of theory expressed as a
> ratio (ie, accurate to 9999 parts in 10 000).
>
> Since v (Veracity) is fixed at 1 to 1 (reduced to 1), then for all values of
> e and a it can be clearly seen that all theories fall short of immutability.
>
> The corollary, Rappel's Law, states that
>
> "All values of t tend towards the value expressed by (e-1)/e in
> proportionate force to the disparity."
>
>
> While I intended only to elaborate upon a point I was making for my own
> amusement, upon reflecting upon the Theory and Law I thought them worthy of
> sharing with the virian group. I could be utterly misled, but I thought them
> rather neat - the obvious implication is that theories are replaced or
> majorly revised when Rappel's Law indicates that there is a large vector of
> tension away from the less accurate predictions, and that this resets the
> value of "e" such that there is little impetus towards another major
> revision of theory until a correspondingly greater effort is made to prove
> it inadequate - while continually bringing the value of "a" closer and
> closer to 1, or as it is otherwise known, Truth.
>
>
> This also relates to an oral discussion I had last Sunday with the Calgary
> Virians, in which I expressed the heretical opinion that scientific progress
> might plateau at some point and no longer advance at the rates currently
> seen or projected in the future. I don't agree with the logical necessity of
> an infinite progression of levels of scientific understanding of phenomena,
> and regardless of whether I am correct or not in this disagreement, it may
> be that while it is possible to further refine a particular scientific
> theory, that the increase in accuracy and predictive power can become
> infinitesmial.
>
> For example, if genetic engineering advanced to a point where flesh could be
> sculpted to any form desired, humans were made immortal and of super-genius
> intelligence, diseases conquered, and any planet inhabitable through
> adaptation of the human body, what further advances in this area would be
> needed? If matter-antimatter power was perfected to where I could run a city
> on a powerplant the size of a soccer ball, would it really be worth
> developing the baseball-size version? I think there comes a point where
> diminishing returns in all areas will curtail scientific advancement
> greatly, as the energy expended will become less and less
efficient.
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 13 2001 - 07:43:26 GMT