Forum    Search    FAQ

Board index » Chat Forums » Political Opinions and Opinionated Posts




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 93 posts ] 
 
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Faith III Complexity
 Post Posted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 9:45 pm 
Member of the Fraternal Order of the Emergency Pants
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 3145
AOL: drachefly
Location: Philadelphia, PA
kitoba wrote:
If this doesn't address your point, then I've failed to apprehend your point


Okay, I see now what you were addressing. I thought we were still on Dawkins, but you were addressing the question of distributions over possible worlds and such-like.

On that, I would just point out that QM appears in some ways to be the universe being maximally indecisive. Do everything every way. That suggests we're somewhere off the bottom of the Tegmark multiverse scale. And as long as a universe contains general computing facility, it can implement arbitrary rules within some sub-region.

Top 
   
 Post subject: Re: Faith III Complexity
 Post Posted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 7:05 am 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Sat May 25, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 2341
Location: Smack bang in the middle of Europe
kitoba wrote:
If you want to bring this back to an "Intelligent Designer" argument, then you argue that God designed the grid. But you don't have to take that approach in order to yield consequential differences with Dawkins' account. For instance, you could describe the "punctuated equilibrium" theory --that waffle likes, but Dawkins loathes --as a conceptualization under which the grid itself evolves over time, with different areas of terrain opening and closing in response to events such as mass extinctions.


I've been absent for a while, since I didn't have much to add to Leochopper's arguments, but I felt a bit of clarity on a slightly tangential point was needed here.

Dawkins doesn't 'loathe' punctuated equilibrium - you may have been misled by hyperbole a bit. Dawkins fully accepts that species can go through periods of relative status and periods of rapid change. His disagreement with Gould was more one of emphasis. Gould, especially in his later writings, seemd to lean more towards the point of view that almost all significant evolutionary change happened in rapid, punctuated fashion. Dawkins argued that the rate of evolutionary change is highly variable depending on local conditions - sometimes change happens gradually, sometimes it happens much quicker due to stong selective pressures; and that there's nothing too special about the punctuated equilibrium model.

When you get right down to it, I don't think Gould and Dawkins actually disagreed much on the substance of what they were saying. It was more a disagreement over how to say it.

Top 
   
 Post subject: Re: Faith III Complexity
 Post Posted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 12:58 pm 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Mon Sep 23, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 2658
Website: http://kitoba.com
Location: Televising the revolution
Steave wrote:
I ran out of things to say a few pages back but still enjoyed following along.


I appreciate everyone who posted here. It got a bit heated at times, but that just represents how passionate we all were about the topic. I can't imagine even contemplating a discussion like this anywhere else on the internet.

Top 
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 93 posts ] 

Board index » Chat Forums » Political Opinions and Opinionated Posts


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

 
 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: