Hi Randall & Kev,

I hesitate to get into this "argument", but here is my two cents: I think both of you are right.

My credentials: I have a Ph.D. in High Energy/Particle Physics (from a long time ago) - I worked as a software engineer for my career, but after I retired in 2000, I have gotten back into physics - as at least an observer - going to several weeks worth of physics conferences per year along with 1 or 2 physics colloquia per week.

I think it is absolutely clear that the UNIVERSE has evolved with time as Randall states. From the quark / gluon plasma shortly after the big bang, to the atomic plasma at about 10,000 degrees Kelvin at the time of the cosmic microwave background generation at about 300,000 years after the big bang, to the age of the first stars, the formation of galaxies and stars, to the current age of 13.7 +/- 0.1 billion years with the cosmic background radiation at 2.7 degrees Kelvin and eventually after a few hundred or thousand billion more years the universe will consist of black holes plus matter at a thousandth or millionth of a degree Kelvin (when Bose-Einstein condensates will form). So the UNIVERSE evolves. In fact the chemistry also evolves - at the end of the big bang the universe consists of mostly hydrogen along with a fraction of helium and a trace of lithium. All the elements heaver than that were created by the burning of hydrogen and helium in fusion reactions in stars where the heavier elements are then pumped back into the universe/galaxies by supernova explosions of the early stars.

On the other hand, there is absolutely no evidence that the LAWS OF PHYSICS have ever changed and/or evolved with time which is what Kevin states. This is believed to be true from at least a tiny fraction of a second after the big bang (10^-20 sec?) to now (13.7 billion years after the big bang) or into the indefinite future. If, as most physicists hope, we eventually discover a way of writing down the laws of physics on the back of an envelope, these laws will apply during all these ages of the evolution of the universe -- but the laws themselves will always be the same. Different "portions" of the laws will apply in different energy domains and thus at different times, but the laws themselves do not change. There have been some speculations that perhaps things like the fine structure constant (~1/137 = the strength of the electromagnetic interactions) might change by tiny amounts over the age of the universe - but there is really no believable or convincing evidence that even this tiny amount of law change is real. There is the concept of eternal inflation in the multiverse "before" the big bang of our universe -- where the laws of physics are radically different in different "child" universes (like ours) -- but that is not what Randall is talking about (I don't think).

Anyway, my $0.02 - you are both right.

Frank

Famous New Yorker cartoon: a kid's at the table with a frown on his face. Mom says "Eat your Swiss chard, dear, it's good for you." Kid replies: "I say it's spinach, and I say the hell with it."

Same thing seen from different viewpoints.

To my mind there's divergence here because of semantic issues and differing fundamental models. Am I incorrect in thinking some controversy is coming from the difference between definitions of the word 'evolution' together with differences between what it means for a thing to evolve, and also differences of what it means for a model of a thing to evolve, and even differences in explanation of a model to evolve. That's three different levels of meaning, or Swiss chard if you want to get technical.

A look at a dictionary provides simply 'evolution: a process of change in a certain direction'. To give meaning to this definition one has to define 'process' and 'change'. A flask of chemicals might evolve its reaction to completion as a process of change in energy in components as well as changes in structures of atomic connections. A sea of gas plasma in space might evolve particle positions, charge, momentum, and magnetic fields in the direction that entropy pushes it. The physical natures of matter and energy might change in something in the sense that matter and energy can transform forms and parameter values can change, but matter will always still be matter, and energy will always still be energy. Ie, an atom of carbon will never evolve as such, but combinations of structures of carbon atoms might change. Basic laws of chemistry as existing prior to mankind will stay the same, i.e., they are constant and independent of man, but man's understanding of these laws will evolve over time.

If we talk about biological structures driven by information controls, such as DNA- based life, evolution references structure functions and complexity of construction. These certainly can and do evolve.

So I gotcher basic spinach right here, lady. We're both talking about the same green stuff really, I figure we just have to align our frames of reference more.

...In evolution, I know my stuff. Instead of offering up arguments, why don't you try to tell me what evolution is, and back it up with theory. ....

The idea is that one presents a theory and then backs it up with fact.

You assert that "the universe is different now in respect to any past. The difference is not random". In what way is it not random? Or if you want to argue that it is entirely deterministic: in what way is it predictable?

If have no argument with time/entropy having direction, but you are not showing us any relationship with PolyWorld or human evolution - theoretical or otherwise.

My engineering background is solid, I'm well aware of what compromises are being made, there are no "lies".

The definition I have shown here is the one that best matches THE process (domain independent).

I missed that. Maybe you could restate it concisely as a theory, with some facts to back it up.

Nature is evolving. All of it. All of the time. Same process always. Same reason always.

.

You still haven't defined what you mean by evolution, other than (possibly) the decay of the universe from a high energy state to a lower one.

For animals on earth evolution is fairly well defined: karyotypes meet, mix randomly and possibly grow up to be better than their parents (or fail to procreate).

It's an easily abstracted process that can be applied to software which is not subject to the laws of physics other than you need to expend energy running the computer.

---

So: once you have restated your theory, and backed it with facts, maybe you could explain its relevance in the virtual reality of PolyWorld.

Kevin, you are rude. What I have written is the basis of all of contemporary physics, chemistry, and evolution theory.

I don't know what motivates your argument. I have expended a great deal of effort to explain my understanding and back it up with theory reaching to the very base of causality. Ask a physicist or a chemist or a string or quantum theorist. Ask a top contemporary evolution theorists. The base of all of these fields of research is thermodynamics. If there is a more formative causal layer to all of nature, it has yet to be found.

"The law that entropy always increases, holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations - then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation - well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."
-
Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)


I am afraid Kevin that you are mean spirited. In the absence of internalized knowledge and original thought, you retreat to the childishness that is pushing those who do down. There is no greater proof of this childishness than to ask for proof of the foundational supremacy of thermodynamics in a scientific discussion.

Without backing up the process of complexity building with this thermodynamic base, you will only be able to reach so far with your simple generational mechanisms. Computing and thinking are not exceptions.

But mainly Kevin, you need to act your age. Think. Learn. Be critical. Skeptical. Of course! But check your motivations. They hinder your vision. They are embarrassing. They stand in your way.

Randall Reetz

Kevin, you are rude. ...
Randall Reetz

Regardless of your opinion of me, you have still not stated what celestial evolution/physics has to do with evolution in PolyWorld where normal rules don't apply.

Kev.

Kevin, please reread my posts. I answer your question every single time I post. Here I go again…

Evolution is a universal process. Is always driven by the simple causality of the degradation of energy (and structure... they are equivalent). Stellar evolution is driven by gravity and the fissile decay of heavy matter into less heavy matter. At each step along the way, the total average of the energy/structural complexity of the universe is reduced (degrading towards the eventuality of heat death). In PolyWorld, same thing (though much harder to see). In PolyWorld, change is mitigated by layers and layers of structure (energy topology) in the form of semi-permeable circuits (they direct most of the electrons falling down towards a ground, others stray across quantum tunneling, and still others decay some energy to heat). But if you see the PolyWorld system as unbounded by the artificial boundaries we usually apply… if we instead see the software and hardware as an extension of the human mind, of the causal energy chain that is all of history, that is the energy cline that allows us to build ideas and externalize these ideas into physical systems and control structures… we can see that PolyWorld is, like all systems, every bit as evolutionary as everything else.

The processes and behaviors you assign exclusively to biological evolution are equally present in all systems as they evolve. And for the same exact reason. Kevin, I truly doubt you are incapable of understanding what I am saying. I truly doubt you disagree or that anyone could. I am left with only one reason for your pathological and obsessive opposition to reality… that you want to win (even if you are wrong). And you are wrong Kevin. No picking apart my posts will expose any truth bigger than entropy as the driver of all change. No nitpicking will show that evolution is exclusive to biology or any subset of the universe (or any other universe).

You aren't arguing against me, you are arguing against the Universe. Good luck.

Randall

Kevin, please reread my posts. I answer your question every single time I post. Here I go again…

Evolution is a universal process. ...

But if you see the PolyWorld system as unbounded by the artificial boundaries we usually apply…… we can see that PolyWorld is, like all systems, every bit as evolutionary as everything else.

Maybe you can see that, but repeating your claim isn't making it work any better for me.

I don't see these systems as the same because PolyWorld is an abstract mathematical model of a world, and is not subject to normal physical laws. Entropy is not a force at work in PolyWorld, so if there is evolution within PolyWorld entropy is not an essential driving force for it - so your claim is unfounded.

The processes and behaviors you assign exclusively to biological evolution are equally present in all systems as they evolve.

I never assigned anything exclusively to biology, and you are making the same unfounded claim again.

And for the same exact reason. Kevin, I truly doubt you are incapable of understanding what I am saying. I truly doubt you disagree or that anyone could. I am left with only one reason for your pathological and obsessive opposition to reality… that you want to win (even if you are wrong). And you are wrong Kevin. No picking apart my posts will expose any truth bigger than entropy as the driver of all change.

I'm an engineer, thoroughly grounded in reality. You seem to be pontificating about science in a way that isn't useful even if it was true - maybe that's just entropy at work.

No nitpicking will show that evolution is exclusive to biology or any subset of the universe (or any other universe).

You aren't arguing against me, you are arguing against the Universe. Good luck.

Randall

I have no problem with the universe. And I'm afraid you cannot claim any kind of evolution occurs at the atomic and sub-atomic levels - half a dozen atoms in a box won't evolve into anything. Evolution is a macroscopic effect.

Kev.

kevin, if you can show that "entropy is not a force at work in PolyWorld" or any other system, you will have done what no other scientist has been able to do… ever. Hilarious.

kevin, if you can show that "entropy is not a force at work in PolyWorld" or any other system, you will have done what no other scientist has been able to do… ever. Hilarious.

It's an abstract mathematical model - where exactly does entropy factor into that?

Mathematics exists outside physics.

Kev.