Re: The evolution of "evolution"

From: Chris Taylor (
Date: Sat 29 Oct 2005 - 12:04:56 GMT

  • Next message: Joel.M Dimech: "Re: Me against the meme"

    All 'physics fields' work in the current time frame; yours would work across time (deep time in some cases). That's a big difference. Planets / radios / whatever are not affected by fields generated in the past (beyond travel time, for example, in the case of em)..?

    Dace wrote:
    > Robin,
    >>Wednesday, October 26, 2005, 8:06:27 AM, Dace wrote:
    >>>From a material standpoint nothing mediates the mutual attraction or
    >>>repulsion of objects as a result of either gravity or magnetism. This
    > is
    >>>why the field is postulated, in order to account for the undeniable
    > reality
    >>>of such long-range effects. No field of physics has ever been detected.
    >>>Rather, it is *deduced.* The strength of a field must be calculated on
    > the
    >>>basis of abstract equations, not read off from a meter that directly
    >>>measures it.
    >>I recently used something called a "field strength meter" to measure
    >>microwave radiation around my house. (I live within 120m of a mast
    >>with several arrays.) Regarding magnetism, I have a very handy device
    >>called a compass.
    > Compasses existed long before field theory. That a compass reacts to the
    > presence of a field must be deduced. Assuming our deduction is correct,
    > both the "field strength meter" and the compass are measuring the effects of
    > electromagnetic fields. That your meter is actually called a "field
    > strength meter" only goes to show the universality of the field theory
    > inference. The formulae for computing field strength are evidently built
    > into the device.
    >>Let me know when you have such things for your fields.
    > Like the inference of electromagnetic fields, holistic effects in biology
    > can also be deduced from observations. Regarding the production of termite
    > mounds, which are essentially free-standing lungs that provide oxygen to
    > termites and remove carbon dioxide, E. O. Wilson has this to say:
    > "It is all but impossible to conceive how one colony member can oversee more
    > than a minute fraction of the work or envision in its entirety the plan of
    > such a finished product. Some of these nests require many worker lifetimes
    > to complete, and each new addition must somehow be brought into a proper
    > relationship with the previous parts. The existence of such nests leads
    > inevitably to the conclusion that the workers interact in a very orderly and
    > predictable manner. But how can the workers communicate so effectively over
    > such long periods of time? Also, who has the blueprint of the nest?"
    > (Quoted by Sheldrake, The Presence of the Past, Times Books, 1988, p. 229)
    > By all appearanches, the coordinated activity of termites cannot be
    > attributed to their ability to communicate. Rather, a field effect seems to
    > be at work. To test this hypothesis, the naturalist Eugene Marais inserted
    > a steel plate through the middle of a termite mound, preventing any
    > communication between the separated termites. Nonetheless, termites were
    > able to build arches that met perfectly on opposite sides of the plate as if
    > it wasn't even there. Termites act more like particles in a field of
    > influence than separate actors. The same could be said of the cells
    > comprising our bodies.
    > More recently, Miroslav Hill demonstrated field effects among bacteria being
    > tested for resistance to a carcinogenic substance. He found that alongside
    > the exposed bacteria, related bacteria in physically isolated containers
    > also developed resistance. After repeating the experiment numerous times,
    > ensuring absolute separation of the bacterial colonies, he got the same
    > results. He concluded that the exposed bacteria shared information at a
    > distance with the unexposed bacteria. Interestingly, Hill chose to
    > interpret the results in terms of quantum entanglement or nonlocality rather
    > than the more traditional field theory.
    > There'll never be a simple device for measuring such effects in biology, as
    > the only way to measure them is via organisms. For instance, Sheldrake used
    > a dog to demonstrate the existence of a field of influence embracing both
    > the dog and his owner. When a skeptic named Richard Wiseman tried to refute
    > Sheldrake's findings with his own experiment, instead he replicated
    > Sheldrake's results.
    > You noted in a different post that scientists have no difficulty accepting
    > invisible phenomenon. This is true of physicists but not biologists. Where
    > physicists readily accept the evidence for action at a distance, biologists
    > remain wedded to contact mechanics. This just goes to show that while a
    > meme dies off in one environment, it may continue flourishing in another.
    > ted
    > ===============================================================
    > 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:

    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)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat 29 Oct 2005 - 12:25:32 GMT