Re: Logic + universal evolution

Date: Fri Aug 10 2001 - 06:44:04 BST

  • Next message: Dace: "Re: Convergence"

    Received: by id GAA12679 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 06:40:04 +0100
    From: <>
    Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 00:44:04 -0500
    Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
    Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
    Subject: Re: Logic + universal evolution
    Message-ID: <3B732E54.31548.1291B56@localhost>
    In-reply-to: <004f01c12159$9db252c0$6a24f4d8@teddace>
    X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
    Precedence: bulk

    On 9 Aug 2001, at 22:02, Dace wrote:

    > Wade,
    > > >Therefore, do you have access to solid arguments refuting the idea
    > > >of the evolutionary process yielding the emergence of stable
    > > >particles (proton,electrons, neutrons) immediately prior to the big
    > > >bang instant?
    > >
    > > I ain't a cosmologist, like I said, but, as far as I know, there is
    > > no evidence of anything being around to evolve or not before the big
    > > bang.
    > >
    > > The definition of 'Big Bang' is the start of it all- time, space,
    > > and everything.
    > There's no starting point for time. "Start" is a temporal concept.
    > It implies time. So time itself cannot start. Time has no beginning
    > for the same reason it can't end. Any "boundary" of time would imply
    > the existence of something else against which time could be defined.
    > There would thus have to be something other than time which comes
    > before or after it, and this cannot be, since "before" and "after" are
    > functions of time.
    > What began with the big bang was not time but spacetime.
    > Whether our culture is
    > > evolving is, IMHO, questionable, in that it seems to manifest itself
    > > in the same ways (clothing, behaviors, traditions, rituals,
    > > xenophobia, tribalism, burying practices, gods, etc.), and, while it
    > > is cocktail party pretty to speak of cultural evolution, I see it
    > > more specie specific, if it's there at all, and not just a longishly
    > > tethered item of genetic and environmental interaction, a la Wilson,
    > > who, also IMHO, would pummel Sheldrake in an instant.
    > To my knowledge Wilson has never responded to Sheldrake's thesis that
    > termite mounds are governed by morphic fields, with the termites
    > occupying a similar role to cells within animal bodies. Wilson has
    > never responded to this suggestion because he has no alternative.
    > It's just up in the air. He doesn't like the field explanation, but
    > he can't offer anything better.
    > Here's a quote from The Social Insects (1971):
    > "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 relaitonship 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 effictively over such long period
    > time? Also, who has the blueprint of the nest?"
    > It's just like in the body. There seems to be no reason why
    > everything works the way it does. We just assume there must be a
    > control mechanism somewhere in there, which is based on a blueprint of
    > some kind. So where are the chromosomes of termite mounds? And if
    > termite mounds don't need a design of some kind buried deep within it,
    > then how can we simply *assume* that the body requires any such thing?
    > The regular forms of these mounds is a perplexing question for which
    > there's no answer outside of field theory, whether the static,
    > mathematical idealism of Goodwin or the evolutionary, memory-based
    > model of Sheldrake.
    Simple rules can have complex consequences. The apparently
    choreographed movements of schools of fish or flocks of birds are
    explained by each individual bird's tendency to keep its neighbor
    within X and Y distance of itself; the building of beaver dams is
    explained by the rule that branches and mud are to be moved
    towards the sound of running water. I'm sure that there is a similar
    rule or small group of rules, probably connected with pheromonic
    chemical marking, that will suffice to explain termite mound
    > 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 2b29 : Fri Aug 10 2001 - 06:44:20 BST