Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: Trish
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 06:17:20 -0500
MARK A CLARK wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
> Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.bible.prophecy,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.bible,alt.christnet.evangelical,alt.christnet.philosophy,alt.christnet.theology,alt.religion.christian,sci.misc,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.physics,sci.skeptic,talk.atheism,talk.origins
> Followup-To: alt.atheism,alt.bible.prophecy,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.bible,alt.christnet.evangelical,alt.christnet.philosophy,alt.christnet.theology,alt.religion.christian,sci.misc,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.physics,sci.skeptic,talk.atheism,talk.origins
> References: <3290F6F2.3781@ix.netcom.com> <56tr1t$c7d@gannett.math.niu.edu> <329332AC.3A8D@ix.netcom.com> <570264$ol4@gannett.math.niu.edu> <3293CF3D.67CD@ix.netcom.com>
> Organization: University of Nevada System Computing Services
> Distribution:
> Lines: 42
> X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950520BETA PL0]
>
> Trish (capuchin@gte.net) wrote:
> : MARK A CLARK wrote:
> : >
> : > : > who says they suffer?
> : > :
> : > : What?? Oh yea, I'm sure a zebra enjoys being killed and eaten by a pride of
> : > : lions--who are probably starving and parasite infested themselves. Wild
> : > : animals do not live lives of comfort and peace like in Disney movies...
> : >
> : > thank you for the poignant condescending crap in there. yet i reply,
> : > nonetheless. so who says they suffer? noone said they *enjoy* being
> : > eaten, per se, but who can demonstrate that animals don't have an
> : > instinctual understanding that they are a part of life, and that life
> : > goes on even if theirs must end. i know it sounds really fringe, but hey.
> : >
> : > and do you mean to tell me that, in fact, monkeys aren't the shamans of
> : > local tribes of talking lions and hyenas? oh, i am aghast!
> :
> : The problem here is that humans don't regard themselves as animals. Big
> : surprise .. we are. The only difference between humans and animals is
> : the level of intelligence that varies between species ... and the
> : concept of human self awareness. Self awareness consitutes the need for
> : a "life after death", otherwise most humans would be miserable creatures
> : contemplating their own death.
>
> there are other differences between man and animals... a developed heel
> bone, a fully opposable thumb, and fully developed speech (vocal chords
> and speech areas of the brain). but i digress... implying that
> self-awareness is but a small or inconsequent distinction, as you *seem*
> to do (i may have read you wrong), is like saying that red and green are
> the same color, except for that little shading difference. if
> self-awareness is the only thing that separates us from other animals, so
> be it.
>
> : As well .. if animals have an instinctual understanding of life, then
> : that is something that humans must have at one time possessed and lost,
> : or animals are way beyond our conceptual level of understanding. I
> : gives you something to think about.
>
> i would not doubt that animals have an innate understanding of the cycle
> of life far greater than most people on the face of the planet. and i
> don't see any reason why they shouldn't.
Do you imply that humans have the ability of an "afterlife" because we
have fully developed speech? The differences I discuss are non culture
related and non physical. Hell .. we can probably toss out self
awareness as well. Chimps have self awareness.
Trish
Subject: Re: Mars Rock Crock!
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 1997 03:50:58 GMT
In article <5b1g7h$qjo@clarknet.clark.net>, jwalters@clark.net (Jim Walters) writes:
>meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>: >
>: I've also seen you stating that they used bad data. Now, to my
>: knowledge (though I may be mistaken) they relied on the whole existing
>: database of IQ results, not picked just a part they liked. So, are
>: you claiming that all existing data is bad. It may be so, mind you,
>: but then some basis for the claim should've been provided.
>:
>: Let me ask the following question? Do you claim that when all the
>: existing data is taken and the proper statistical methods are applied
>: to it, there are no statistically significant differences between
>: nationalities and ethnic groups? If so, do you've some references for
>: this?
>
>I have never read "The Bell Curve", so I can't specifically comment on the
>quality of the research in that book. I can make general comments about
>the proper analysis of data, however. Basically, there is data, and there
>is data. What I mean is that some data is good quality, and some data is
>bad quality. Using all available data - when some of it is bad - is
>definitely worse than using only the good data. Let me give you one
>example.
>
>When I was working on my master's I had to combine my data with data
>acquired by previous researchers. The old data was taken with either of
>two methods - one of which is far more precise and accurate than the
>other. When I used all the available data indiscriminately my error bars
>were more than ten times larger than when I used only the high quality
>data. It would have been nearly impossible for me to do any real science
>with the mixed data set, and my results would have been extremely
>unreliable. For all subsequent analysis I used only the high quality
>data. To do otherwise would have been bad science.
>
Certainly. But, for this you've to have a good and specific reason.
If the old data was collected using a technique which has since been
superseded and is not considered reliable, then you've a justification
to dismiss it. But not just on the basis of "I don't like it".
Specifically, in the case of IQ tests I'm not aware of any "the old
way has been dismissed and superseded by a different one" situation.
One may argue to what extent the technique as a whole is reliable but
then it is a matter of all IQ testing results, not just some subsets.
>If the authors of "The Bell Curve" indiscriminately mixed data from very
>poorly executed studies into their analysis, then it is possible that
>their results are worse than useless.
We're talking data, not studies. If you use an IRS data (just as an
example) to look for correlations between, say, ethnic origin and
income (again, just an example), you are using data which was
collected within a process of record keeping, not any study. So, in
such a hypothetical case, you'll better use all the data available or
at least a subset selected using criteria totally irrelevant to your
study.
Now, in general I have a very deep mistrust of all statistical
studies. If the effect looked for is a small blip on top of a large
statistical noise (as is indeed the case, more often then not) then
the slightest bias on part of the researchers (and there is no such
thing as a totally unbiased researcher) will suffice to twist the
results completely. Thus most such studies are not very reliable.
The ones which are, if not reliable then at least "not quite
unreliable" are the ones which use data which was collected for
completely different purpose, not by the researchers themself but by
other people. But in a case like this all the data should be used
unless you've a very good reason to reject some.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Subject: FOURIER CONVOLUTION THEOREM (Discrete)
From: abian@iastate.edu (Alexander Abian)
Date: 9 Jan 97 03:58:40 GMT
Dear Emma: at your and others requests I am concluding my previous postings.
Please for references see my previous postings "Fourier
Interpolation" and "Fourier Transform"
In this posting I will prove the Convolution Theorem in connection with
Fourier Transforms (Discrete)
As a preliminary, let me remark that a PRODUCT of two vectors can be
defined in many, many, many ways.
Let us take vectors (a,b,c) and (m,n,p). We expect that their product
be another triplet (x,y,z) which is constructed according to some
recipe from (a,b,c) and (m,n,p).
Here are some various definitions of Products of the two vectors:
(1) (a,b,c).(m,n,p) = (am,bn,cp) "coordinatewise multiplication"
(2) (a,b,c).(m,n,p) = (amn, bnp, cpa) (no special name)
(3) (a,b,c).(m,n,p) = (a^m, b^n,c^p) " "
(4) (a,b,c).(m,n,p) = (a-mb, b-nc, c-pa) " "
those products need not be commutative or associative or endowed with any
special properties. However, they are legitimate products.
A very special recipe for product is given below:
(5) (a,b,c)*(m,n,p) = (an+bm+cp, ap+bn+cm, am+bp+cn) ("CONVOLUTION" product)
This CONVOLUTION product of (a,b,c) and (m,n,p) is commutative (of course
over fields such as reals) and associative.
How to remember the recipe involved in (5)? One way is as follows
Out of the vector (m,n,p) construct the following 3 by 3 CONVOLUTION
matrix:
/ n p m\
| |
(6) | m n p | Convolution matrix of (m,n,p)
| |
\ p m n /
and then define the Convolution Product (a,b,c)*(m,n,p) as the usual
product of matrix (a,b,c) by the matrix given in (6). Indeed
/ n p m\
| |
(7) (a,b,c) * (m,n,p) = (a, b, c) | m n p |=(an+bm+cp, ap+bn+cm, am+bp+cn)
| |
\ p m n /
which,as expected, is given by (5).
REMARK 1. Pay attention to the main and the secondary diagonals in
matrix (6). Their elements remain the same.
Two more examples of CONVOLUTION product of vectors:
/ n p q m \
| |
| m n p q |
(a, b, c, d) * (m, n, p, q) = (a, b, c, d) | |
| q m n p |
| |
\ p q m n /
and
/ p q r n n\
| n p q r m |
(a,b,c,d,e) * (m,n,p,q,r) = (a,b,c,d,e) | m n p q r |
| r m n p q |
\ q r m n p /
Now, let us turn to the CONVOLUTION product of two Function, f and g,
again for the sake of simplicity (as in my previous posting) each
function is defined only on x = -1, 0, 1.
According to the above, and especially (7), the CONVOLUTION PRODUCT OF
TWO FUNCTIONS F and g defined on x = -1, 0, 1 is given as another
function f*g again defined on -1, 0, 1 according to the recipe used
in (7), i.e.,
(8) f * g = (f(-1),f(0),f(1) * (g(-1),g(0),g(1) =
/ g(0) g(1) g(-1)\
| |
(f(-1),f(0),f(1)) | g(-1) g(0) g(1) | =
| |
\ g(1) g(-1) g(0) /
(f(-1)g(0) + f(0)g(-1) + f(1)g(1),
f(-1)g(1) + f(0)g(0) + f(1)g(-1),
f(-1)g(-1) +f(0)g(1) + f(1)g(0))
REMARK 2. The above is the discrete analogy of the Integral f(t)g(x-t)dt
Notice t + (x-t) = x and in the above, in the first line we have
-1+0 = 0-1 1+1 (mod3) = - 1 , i.e., x = -1
in the second line, -1+1 = 0+0 = 1-1 = 0, i.e., x = 0
in the third line, -1-1(mod3) = 0+1 = 1+0 = 1 , i.e., x = 1
We are finished with preliminaries . We recall our definition of Fourier
Transform (given in my previous posting) as:
"Fourier Transform of (f(-),f(0),f(1) is (g(-1),g(0,g(1)) where
/w 1 w^-1\
| |
(9) (g(-1), g(0), g(1)) = s(f(-1), f(0), f(1)) |1 1 1 |
| |
|w^-1 1 w |
and where \ /
(10) w = (2pi/3)i and s = 1/sqrt 3
Now, we are ready to prove the Convolution Theorem. Again, for the sake
of simplicity, we consider two functions f and g defined on x = -1,
0, 1
THEOREM (Convolution). The Fourier Transform of the Convolution
product of functions f and g is equal to 1/s = sqrt 3 times the
coordinatewise product of the Fourier transforms of f and g.
PROOF. For the sake of simplicity we use the following notations:
(11) f = (f(-1),f(0),f(1)) = (a,b,c)
(12) g = (g(-1),g(0),g(1)) = (m,n,p)
(13) T(h) for the Fourier Transform of function h
To prove the Theorem, based on (11),(12),(13) we must show that:
(14) T((a,b,c) * (m,n,p) = (3^0.5) T(a,b,c)T(m,n,p)
From (5) and (9), the left side of = in (14) is equal to:
/w 1 1 w^-1\
| |
(15) s(an+bm+cp, ap+bn+cm, am+bp+cn) | 1 1 1 |
| |
|w^-1 1 w |
\ /
with s and w as given by (10).
On the other hand, the right side of = in (14) is equal to
/ w 1 w^-1\ / w 1 w^-1\
| | | |
| | | |
(16) s^2 (a,b,c) | 1 1 1 | (m,n,p) | 1 1 1 |
| | | |
|w^-1 1 w | |w^-1 1 w |
\ / \ /
In (16), the 1 by 3 vectors which arise from the two products of (a,b,c)
and (m,n,p) with the corresponding 3 by 3 matrices must, of course, be
multiplied COORDINATEWISE.
The validity of (14) is readily verified by performing the multiplications
indicated in (15) and (16). Each product yields a 1 by 3 vector and
one can easily verified that the coordinates of the vector given by (15)
are 1/ s times (where s = 1/sqrt3) the corresponding coordinates of the
1 by 3 vector given by (16).
.
We check, say, the second coordinate of each of the to vectors.
The second coordinate of the vector given in (15) is:
(17) s( an+bm+cp+ap+bn+cm+am+bp+cn)
and the second coordinate of the vector given in (16) is equal
(18) (s^2)(a+b+c)(m+n+p) = (s^2)(am+an+ap+bm+bn+bp+cm+cn+cp)
Obviously, (17) and (18) verify the conclusion of the Theorem. Indeed
the number given in (17) is 1/s times the number given in (18).
PS. This concludes the 3 prt postings:(1) Fourier Interpolation (or
Fourier reprersentation), (2)Fourier Transform and (3)Fourier
Convolution Theorem (ALL DISCRETE).
PSS. If any comments, please post (my e-mail is almost out of order)
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABIAN MASS-TIME EQUIVALENCE FORMULA m = Mo(1-exp(T/(kT-Mo))) Abian units.
ALTER EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOP GLOBAL DISASTERS AND EPIDEMICS
ALTER THE SOLAR SYSTEM. REORBIT VENUS INTO A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT
TO CREATE A BORN AGAIN EARTH (1990)
Subject: Re: Baez & Bunn >> Re: Help me believe in Coulomb's law
From: Mountain Man
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 11:59:31 -0800
Operator wrote:
> Mountain Man writes:
> >http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/news96_p.html
> >(1) Data concerning the distances of the planetary orbits from the sun.
> >(2) Data concerning the observed periodic solar fluctuations.
> >
> >If you take the time to read the post, you will determine that there
> >exists - IN THE CORRELATION OF THE TWO DATA TABLES - more than a random
> >correlation.
> It is not difficult to present sets of data which show correlations.
> Especially when looking for those correlations. But that is not the
> point. Those data would only make sense if they were explained with
> a *REAL* scientific theory or better yet, if they would contradict
> a real scientific theory. The pet theory of Harmonic whatevers or
> anything similar cannot be taken seriously for more than 5 milliseconds
> by any real scientist and that was what I was referring to.
Pythagoras would have sat down and talked turkey with Ray. I doubt that
he'd give much time to some of the other theories floating around. The
phenomena of harmonic resonance is able to be studied across an
extremely
broad spectrum of disciplines, for most systems are resonant, and any
resonant system will exhibit 'harmonics' (A specific statistical
distribution of power within the resonance.)
Ray has specified the nature of this statistical distribution, and
has made the hypothesis that this very nature (ie: this specific
distribution of harmonics) forms the statistical substrate for all
systems which exhibit resonance.
Now this is a huge set of systems, spanning all the traditional
sciences, spanning all the interdisciplinary sciences, and also
including non_scientific disciplines such as economics, geology,
and the life sciences.
The derivation of this substrate of harmonics is not difficult,
if I can perceive what it is about then many other should also
be able to perceive this as well ... yet I canna see evidence of
this, and by your comments it would appear that the 'others',
including John Baez, are just 'not interested' as this type of
theory does not fall within their respective charters.
And it would not be too unreasonable (for the people on all sides
of this thread) to summarise this 'charter' as the furtherance of
the traditional structure of physical science.
> You must
> really be very far out of touch with science (real academic science -
> the one that is supposed to be discussed on sci.physics.research)
> to think such a naive toy theory makes any chance what so ever.
Yes, I am purposefully out of touch with 'real academic science'.
This was a decision I made some quarter of a century ago, and perhaps,
had I continued my studies in physics and maths (pure, stats & applied)
then our roles would be reversed and perhaps I would be arguing in
your place.
However this is not the case, and my experience of the real world
which has been gained to the exclusion of the experience of the
world of 'real academic science' would counsel that the harmonics
theory is certainly no "naive toy theory" as you would have it
classified, but rather a tool of the interdisciplinary fields
of science appropriate to any and all systems which exhibit resonance.
A question for you Mr Operator:
Around the edges(*) of the ideal models of the academic sciences,
where the complexity of the systems being considered increase
due to an increasing set of variables coming into play
(eg: the science of the atmosphere & weather)
there is evident ever increasing non_linear behaviour
and the standard analytical formulae start to break down.
Would you consider it a fair summation to say that this 'charter'
of the academic sciences tends to avoid these edges(*) in favour
of the hub - the core - the main_stream phenomena and their
related non non_linear science ... ie - the traditional analytical
sciences where non_linear systems are not considered?
This charter has held sway (IMO) for some time, but there is good
research happening and good results from many interdisciplinary
scientific fields - such as that you yourself mention below.
In the long term, this charter needs to be expanded to the edges.
When it finally gets to the edges, and starts to have to deal
with the non_linearity of natural complex systems, then at that
point it will be understood that resonance exists in nature in
a great deal of phenomena, and that the harmonics theory will be
found to be exceedingly valuable in the analysis of the statistical
distribution of data values in this environment.
> >The question - as a scientist - which should be asked is:
> >Why is there a correlation in these two data sequences????????????
>
> Yes, and he should ask that question first from within the framework
> of known theories.
All the known theories use analytical mathematics.
The greater the theories (ie: the more central the theories to the
body of science) the greater their independence of any non_linear
influences. At the edge of the framework, where the theoretical
meets the complex and seemingly chaotic world of nature, the charter
is an evolving concept, for it only here that any substantial (and
generically acclaimed) advances have been forthcoming in the last
few decades
> Actually there is a lot of research going on in
> that direction. Although it is far outside my field (I'm a particle
> physicist) I more or less know what they're doing: simulating the
> contraction of gaseous clouds to form planets. It might be that in
> this dynamics, certain "resonances" (ugh!) favor certain simple
> relationships between the distances from the sun.
Indeed - I would agree that this is quite likely.
> But it takes a lot
> more serious work to find this than just plotting some datapoints
> and proposing a new theory. It is easy to invent new theories.
> It is much harder to fit them within the whole of scientific knowledge.
Someone correct me if I am wrong here ...
In a nut_shell, the harmonics theory attempts to specify the statistical
distribution of properties (eg: power) in a resonant system.
Until traditional scientific knowledge fully encompasses non_linear
nature,
and until it can formally appreciate that nature is full of resonant
systems
(rather that ideal and analytical systems), then the acceptance of the
harmonics theory may be deferred.
It is my personal opinion however, that the harmonics theory has great
merit and will one day be hailed as a fundamental scientific tool used
in the exploration of the nature of cyclic phenomena, in the
delineation of layered environments in the cosmos, and in the
attempted analysis of resonant and non_linear systems.
Pete Brown
--------------------------------------------------------------------
BoomerangOutPost: Mountain Man Graphics, Newport Beach, {OZ}
Thematic Threading: Publications of Peace and Of Great Souls
Webulous Coordinates: http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/welcome.html
QuoteForTheDay: "You shall hear how Hiawatha
prayed and fasted in the forest,
Not for greater skill in hunting,
Not for greater craft in fishing,
Not for triumphs in the battle,
And renown among the warriors,
But for profit of the people,
For advantage of the nations."
- Longfellow (1855)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
