Text 907, 137 rader
Skriven 2004-11-29 16:21:00 av John Edser (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: Publishing scientific
=================================




Tim Tyler <tim@tt1lock.org> wrote:-

> > JE:-
> > Any maximand can be represented as a
> > constant within a mathematical expression.
> > The fact that entropy must always be maximised,
> > no exceptions, means that entropy is
> > always increasing. In a mathematical
> > expression this could be represented
> > as a constant.

> TT:-
> So: the second law of thermodynamics is a piece of valid
> science - because it contains a constant expression -
> and the constant expression is entropy?
> Is that /really/ your position?

JE:-
No. My position was and remains, entropy is
_constantly_ increasing. This can be refuted
by anybody who constructs a perpetual motion
machine.

> > > > > TT:-
> > > > > For instance I am more likely to roll at least one six if
> > > > > I throw three dice rather than two.
> > > > > That statement has no constants in it - but it is a) accurate
> > > > > in this universe, and b) possible to subject to
> > > > > experimental testing.

> > > > JE:-
> > > > Probabilities attempt to measure a constant
> > > > by approximation. It is a guessed constant
> > > > that allows the rationality of probability.
> > > > The guessed maximand in your example is the
> > > > largest probability that you will throw a six.
> > > > Without this maximand which will approach
> > > > a constant value the more you test it,
> > > > the whole thing is just irrational.

> > > TT:-
> > > So, to formalise this, for dice of all types:
> > >   p_one_or_more_six(n dice) > p_one_or_more_six(m dice) when n > m
> > > Are you claiming that that statement has a "guessed" constant
> > > in it?  Therefore it is an acceptable scientific statement?

> > JE:-
> > The constant just represents a proposed maximand for the
> > problem which in this case is the largest probability
> > that you will throw a six.

>snip<

>TT
> ...doesn't mention probabilities of throwing a six.  It deliberately
> leaves open the question of how many sides the dice have.  They could be
> 12-sided, 20 sided - or 60 sided - that's not specified in the equation -
> so the chance of throwing a six doesn't seem to come into the issue.

JE:-
You suggested: "I am more likely to roll at least
one six if I throw three dice rather than two.
That statement has no constants in it". My
reply was that it does have constants within it
because of the phrase "I am more likely to roll
at least one six". The words "more likely" requires
a maximand which could be represented by a constant
term. You are maximising the chances of
rolling "at least one six" using certain
alternatives. This being the case you
are implicitly employing a maximand as
a probability to measure which alternative
was the better one. Without such a maximand
you just end up using statistics randomly
which I am sure you would agree would be
entirely useless because it is utterly
pointless.


> TT:-
> John, your position on the issue of constants in science
> is not just unorthodox, it's wrong.

JE:-
You remain in error.
A maximand appears in _every_ rational argument,
no exceptions where any maximand can be represented
within a mathematical expression as a constant.
However, much of the time basic maximands
are only implied because they are obvious. If
you re-examine the error you made in your reply re:
the physics of a rocket reducing mass only because
the fuel was burnt (EK made the same error), you
will see that you entirely missed mass a maximand
constant as conjectured by Newton but refuted by
Einstein because it was obvious.

> TT:-
> Since you've apparently managed to produce a constant out of
> nowhere in the case of the second law of thermodynamics, what's
> stopping you whistling one up in the case of Hamilton's rule?

JE:-
Hamilton et al are whistling into the wind.
The only constant that can allow the rule to
make rational sense is the total fitness of the
actor. This BASIC constant was simply removed
when the baseline fitness m was deleted.
It can be shown that the only case of proven
organism fitness altruism that exists within
the rule was deleted by the process of
modelling over simplification.

		rb-c>m

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser@tpg.com.au
---
ū RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info@bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2á˙* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 11/29/04 4:21:43 PM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)