A meta-theory of physics could explain life, the universe, computation, and more
-
A BS theory. Takes a lot of words for them to explain how one isn't the other; but traditional physics allows for the same. Nothing radical nor revolutionary in the theory.
Drivel wrote:
How could one show that the evolution of life, with all of its elegant adaptations and appearance of design, is compatible with the laws of physics, which seem to contain no design whatsoever?
Evolution is contrary to design. It is trial and error.
Drivel goes on:
Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection explains the appearance of design in the biosphere, but it fails to explain why such a process is possible in the first place.
Darwin's theory is not about the appearance of design. There is no design.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
A BS theory. Takes a lot of words for them to explain how one isn't the other; but traditional physics allows for the same. Nothing radical nor revolutionary in the theory.
Drivel wrote:
How could one show that the evolution of life, with all of its elegant adaptations and appearance of design, is compatible with the laws of physics, which seem to contain no design whatsoever?
Evolution is contrary to design. It is trial and error.
Drivel goes on:
Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection explains the appearance of design in the biosphere, but it fails to explain why such a process is possible in the first place.
Darwin's theory is not about the appearance of design. There is no design.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Darwin's theory is not about the appearance of design. There is no design.
Hence why the article says appearance of design.
Kevin
-
A BS theory. Takes a lot of words for them to explain how one isn't the other; but traditional physics allows for the same. Nothing radical nor revolutionary in the theory.
Drivel wrote:
How could one show that the evolution of life, with all of its elegant adaptations and appearance of design, is compatible with the laws of physics, which seem to contain no design whatsoever?
Evolution is contrary to design. It is trial and error.
Drivel goes on:
Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection explains the appearance of design in the biosphere, but it fails to explain why such a process is possible in the first place.
Darwin's theory is not about the appearance of design. There is no design.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Evolution is contrary to design. It is trial and error.
A system can be designed and then left to evolution.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other. Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
-
A BS theory. Takes a lot of words for them to explain how one isn't the other; but traditional physics allows for the same. Nothing radical nor revolutionary in the theory.
Drivel wrote:
How could one show that the evolution of life, with all of its elegant adaptations and appearance of design, is compatible with the laws of physics, which seem to contain no design whatsoever?
Evolution is contrary to design. It is trial and error.
Drivel goes on:
Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection explains the appearance of design in the biosphere, but it fails to explain why such a process is possible in the first place.
Darwin's theory is not about the appearance of design. There is no design.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Evolution is contrary to design. It is trial and error.
Could it have been designed to be trial and error? That's what some "AI" systems are designed to do.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
There is no design.
Could you provide support for this statement?
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Evolution is contrary to design. It is trial and error.
Could it have been designed to be trial and error? That's what some "AI" systems are designed to do.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
There is no design.
Could you provide support for this statement?
Stryder_1 wrote:
Could it have been designed to be trial and error? That's what some "AI" systems are designed to do.
Evolution does not work on trial and error; it selects the fittest. Trial and error means recognizing one, and it doesn't.
Stryder_1 wrote:
Could you provide support for this statement?
I don't need to; Darwin already did.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.