john edser

JE:-
Hi Gil,
IMHO the BIG issue is the concept of a finite and not just an infinite truth
domain. A constant within any mathematical expression has to limit the
proposition to be something finite, i.e. the expression will end up dividing
the universe into a minimum two independent events. In set theory (on which
all of mathematics is based) you require a minimum of two separate sets
simply because just the one set cannot intersect or merge with itself.
Before Newton the universe was only divided up into separate events using
the constant "time" which of course always increases in just the one
direction and only at a constant rate. When time is deleted you just end up
with an irrational a proposition, i.e. one without a constant term producing
Xeno's paradox. Time becomes empirically refuted if it went backwards or
moved forward at just a variable rate. After Newton the constants mass and
time allowed the universe to be divided into independent events of Newtonian
mechanics which was a really big advance. Each time mass was added or
subtracted an independent Newtonian event in time eventuated. In the science
of biology the universe is divided into a minimum of 3 independent events.
These are: alive, not alive and never was alive. At all times the organism
concept represents the most basic concept of biology as Biology's only unit
of "alive" or "not alive". The unit of "never was alive" remains entirely, a
unit of physics.


JE:-
I simply argue that any rational proposition must have a frame of reference
where a frame can only be supplied within a mathematical expression via a
constant term where the definition as to what is and what is not a constant
term is NOT a proposition of mathematics.


JE:-
If the proposition has a frame of reference, when expressed as a
mathematical proposition it must have a constant algebraic term. While
preferences are OK with regards to which propositions should be tested
firstly or lastly, preference must not bias the testing.


JE:-
Mostly these terms have no frame of reference at all or contradictory frames
of reference (which just means no frame of reference). Within evolutionary
theory only TDF (Total Darwinian Fitness) can provide a necessary EMPIRICAL frame of reference.


JE:-
Yes, but this is only possible if no frame of reference exists.

JE:-
Without a frame of reference nobody can even understand what they are
talking about but you cannot and are not required to, to convince them of
THAT. All you have to point out is that their proposition remains
irrefutable and therefore non science. So please go away and come back when
you have a refutable form of it. This means: please go away and try to
understand that at the moment you do not even understand what you are
proposing. However, please come back when you a refutable form of your
argument because only then do you actually understand what you are talking about.


JE:-
Yes, in ordinary life most decisions are not rational they are intuitive.
Never underestimate the power of intuition but OTOH never overestimate it
but much more importantly, never misuse it. The sciences are only concerned
with testing refutable theories of nature not biasing nature to fit an
favored intuition, even if that intuition turned out to be correct.


JE:-
Gather and/or propose refutable theories of nature and then do the REALLY
HARD work: invest time, money and unbiased effort in testing them to refutation.

JE:-
But, I hope, not contrary views that provide simultaneous contrary events
like Hamilton's Rule does.


Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@tpg.com.au