Macro-Evolutionary Theory is filled with holes

Nevertheless Wolfram by pretending that there is a "biological software" program behind the creation of the APPARENT COMPLEX form of mollusk whereas the program shows an EFFECTIVE LOW COMPLEXITY (term I used in reference to the article "The study of simplicity and complexity"
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24752&perpage=6&pagenumber=3) explains the how, the tool used by Nature or ... God if not God(s :D?) he doesn't say WHO is the CONCEPTOR of the program and so the creationist don't still have the absolute proof. Whereas if I affirm just by analogy with him that there is a "software algorithm" behind the market's behavior which destroys the psychology of crowds hypothesis, contrary to Wolfram's problematic, I am more lucky than him since I can exclude that it is Nature or God that is behind for they cannot be interested by Stock Market. So what is left apart from Nature and God as for Stock Market : I let you meditate Sherlock's Holme sentence :D

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
--Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (1859-1930), British writer, physician, created Sherlock Holmes
All his novels can be read online here:
http://www.online-literature.com/doyle/




Quote from harrytrader:

there should be something else and this something can involve a more deterministic process than pure randomness of Evolution and if one believe Wolfram http://www.forbes.com/asap/2000/1127/162_7.html


The more sciences he probes, the more Wolfram senses a deeper pattern—an
underlying force that defines not only the cosmos but living things as well:
"Biologists," he says, "have never been able to really explain how things get
made, how they develop, and where complicated forms come from. This is my answer.
" He points at the shell, "This mollusk is essentially running a biological
software program. That program appears to be very complex. But once you
understand it, it's actually very simple."

It's very similar to Stock Market problematic in fact where official theory pretends that Randomness of multiple agents which compete among them - Evolutionary theory - dictates Market Behavior whereas I affirm, through my model that it is an illusion, that there is a deterministic process that is not due to the multiple agents (I mean the MAJORITY of course that there are SOME agents that makes the market behaves like it behaves but it is not those officially theory focus upon). And to explain that I use in fact a genetic metaphore see Plectics: "The study of simplicity and complexity"
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24752&perpage=6&pagenumber=3

and
"Information packing, transcription and alternative splicing"
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24752

P.S.: nevetheless my model is not based on GENETIC MODELLING - it is based on ECONOMIC MODELLING - so it is only ressemblance of form with genetic, that is to say a sort of meta-fractality in modelisation.


More...
 
Biologists are not alone to be confronted to Numerology of Nature or God's enigma see the Pythagorean secret" uncovered in "The Indefinite Dyad and the Golden http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24842&perpage=6&pagenumber=2 :D

http://www.physicspost.com/articles.php?articleId=11

Alpha - The Fine Structure Constant

Author: Ana Gamboa
Added: 10/20/2002
Type: Summary
Viewed: 4870 time(s)

The fine structure constant


Alpha- The Fine Structure Constant
“[1/137] is one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to use with no understanding by man. You might say the ‘hand of God’ wrote that number, and ‘we don’t know how He pushed His pencil.’” –Richard P. Feynman, QED
The fine structure constant is a unit less physical parameter that has the approximate value of 1/137. It is the measure of the strength of the electromagnetic force. It is usually denoted by the lower case Greek letter, alpha. It was first introduced in 1916 by Arnold Sommerfeld (a teacher of Werner Heisenberg) in order to explain the fine structure of energy levels found in the hydrogen atom. The fine structure constant is defined as:

The physical origin of this constant pertains to the closely spaced groups of optical spectrum lines of gases, like hydrogen. Optical spectrum lines are unique in a particular element because they have their own specific energy levels; it is like an element’s “finger print”.
Our understanding of the fine structure constant has evolved since its initial introduction by Sommerfeld. Alpha is now considered to be the coupling constant for the electromagnetic force, just like there are coupling constants for the gravitational force, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force.
The fine structure constant is quite mysterious and has baffled many physicists, mathematicians and anybody else who has been concerned because there are several bizarre numerical coincidences involving the digits 137. Especially coincidences involving other unit less mathematical constants such as e, pi, and the golden ratio. Here are a few interesting examples of numerical coincidences (note that these are approximate values):


Here is a comical quote from Leon Lederman’s book The God Particle that pokes fun at Wolfgang Pauli’s obsession with the number 137:
“One of the wonderful (but unverified) stories in physics emphasizes the importance of 137 as well as illustrating the arrogance of theorists. According to this tale, a notable Austrian mathematical physicist of Swiss persuasion, Wolfgang Pauli, went to heaven, we are assured, and, because of his eminence in physics, was given an audience with God.
‘Pauli, you’re allowed one question. What do you want to know? Pauli immediate asked the one question that he has labored in vain to answer for the last decade of his life. ‘Why is alpha equal to one over one hundred thirty-seven?’
God smiled, picked up the chalk, and began writing equations on the blackboard. After a few minutes, She turned to Pauli, who waved his hand. ‘Das ist falsch! [That’s baloney!]”
This anecdote not only illustrates the arrogance of some theorists as Lederman pointed out, but perhaps how absurd nature may seem to us because it does not always conform to our understanding and what we perceive as reason. Or ironically, God not knowing the answer and Pauli calls Her on it.
Oddly enough, there have been recent discoveries that the fine structure constant, may not be so constant. Visit the following website to find out more: http://focus.aps.org/v8/st9.html
 
Now don't misunderstand : when Wolfram says "that natural selection is not all that important" he doesn't say that natural selection doesn't exist, for it is well known and demonstrated scientifically that it exists, for example mutations of genes exist indeed and it is a RANDOM mechanism since it occurs by errors of copying some ADN or ARN pieces, sometimes it can lead to something useful for the new organism but more often it leads to its death since the probability of obtaining something useful is very low if Nature uses a random law mechanism :D. It's somehow the same thing when I say that psychology is not primary cause, I don't deny that psychology exists in stock market and can play a role, I pretend that it is only secondary comparatively with what I have discovered as other underlying mechanism. That is to say you can use psychology to help you analysing the market but It will always stay fuzzy even if quantified by model like the one of Sornette or others it stays stochastic approach with loose prediction inherent to this type of model.

Quote from harrytrader:

Wolfram http://www.forbes.com/asap/2000/1127/162_7.html

"One of the most esteemed documents of modern paleontology is Stephen Jay
Gould's doctoral thesis on shells. According to Gould, the fact that there are
thousands of potential shell shapes in the world, but only a half dozen actual
shell forms, is evidence of natural selection. Not so, says Wolfram. He's
discovered a mathematical error in Gould's argument, and that, in fact, there
are only six possible shell shapes, and all of them exist in the world.


In other words, you don't need natural selection to pare down evolution to a few
robust forms. Rather, organisms evolve outward to fill all the possible forms
available to them by the rules of cellular automata. Complexity is destiny—and
Darwin becomes a footnote. "I've come to believe," says Wolfram, "that natural
selection is not all that important."


The more sciences he probes, the more Wolfram senses a deeper pattern—an
underlying force that defines not only the cosmos but living things as well:
"Biologists," he says, "have never been able to really explain how things get
made, how they develop, and where complicated forms come from. This is my answer.
" He points at the shell, "This mollusk is essentially running a biological
software program. That program appears to be very complex. But once you
understand it, it's actually very simple."

It's very similar to Stock Market problematic in fact where official theory pretends that Randomness of multiple agents which compete among them - Evolutionary theory - dictates Market Behavior whereas I affirm, through my model that it is an illusion, that there is a deterministic process that is not due to the multiple agents (I mean the MAJORITY of course that there are SOME agents that makes the market behaves like it behaves but it is not those officially theory focus upon). And to explain that I use in fact a genetic metaphore see Plectics: "The study of simplicity and complexity"
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24752&perpage=6&pagenumber=3

and
"Information packing, transcription and alternative splicing"
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24752

P.S.: nevetheless my model is not based on GENETIC MODELLING - it is based on ECONOMIC MODELLING - so it is only ressemblance of form with genetic, that is to say a sort of meta-fractality in modelisation.


More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top