Universal Darwinism ATM closed for mod discussion?

[Presocratics]

Just wondering whats going on with my closed post please? There has been no status update for a few days

[PetersCreek]

At this point, the consensus is that it will remain closed. The ATM forum is not intended for unsupported speculation.

[Presocratics]

At this point, the consensus is that it will remain closed. The ATM forum is not intended for unsupported speculation.

im curious if you read it?

[PetersCreek]

Yes.

[Presocratics]

Yes.

Are you able to explain why it cannot be so?

[Presocratics]

I assumed the error of an ATM thread would be disclosed in thread, justifying its closure?

"this ATM idea doesn't work because.............."

[PetersCreek]

Are you able to explain why it cannot be so?

As I said, the ATM forum is not intended for unsupported speculation. Answering questions about your assertions with yet more unsupported assertions lacks rigor.

I assumed the error of an ATM thread would be disclosed in thread, justifying its closure?

"this ATM idea doesn't work because.............."

The closing comment had not been finalized because we hadn't yet reached the critical mass we normally like to have for consensus. Moderator availablity has been a bit thinner than usual of late, what with real life going on the way it does.

[PetersCreek]

I went back to finalize the thread closing remarks and found that I already had, on the 28th. Since then we've had additional agreement that the thread will remain closed.

[Presocratics]

I note your update. You say I'm spitballing, storytelling! I understand you think an effort like this is fantasy, but you judge early. What can I appeal that you guys and gals would then afford me the opportunity to speak? You must follow my plot to some extent, what is so implausible, other than its contradicting your established views? It is at the very least an attempt to extend explanation towards the world complexity problem, the fine-tuning of physical systems. Thats unique. and while using a credible scientific theme, a known natural organizational principle. Is it really appropriate or even necessary to close the conversation down prematurely?



"Closed pending moderator discussion.

Edit to add:

The thread will remain closed. The ATM forum is not the place for unsupported speculation, spitballing, or story telling."

[Shaula]

It's not that unique. Smolin has been proposing something based on evolutionary principles to solve the same problems since the 90s. It is linked to multiverses rather than a single universe but rooted in existing physics in terms of the mechanisms that could drive it.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...ral-selection/

I made my views on what you were doing pretty clear in the thread - I will leave them there. Suffice to reiterate that they had nothing at all to do with you challenging my established views and everything to do with the content and presentation of what you were proposing.

[Strange]

What can I appeal that you guys and gals would then afford me the opportunity to speak?"

I would suggest you do some science: produce a mathematical model, some testable (ie quantitative - which is why a mathematical model is required) predictions, and then show how well those predictions match observations.

[Presocratics]

It's not that unique. Smolin has been proposing something based on evolutionary principles to solve the same problems since the 90s. It is linked to multiverses rather than a single universe but rooted in existing physics in terms of the mechanisms that could drive it.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...ral-selection/

I made my views on what you were doing pretty clear in the thread - I will leave them there. Suffice to reiterate that they had nothing at all to do with you challenging my established views and everything to do with the content and presentation of what you were proposing.

Credit to Smolin and Richard Dawkins for having the wits to recognize and take the complexity problem and fine-tuning problem seriously. Most take for granted, wink wink nudge nudge. Their evolutionary mechanisms were pretty nebulous, and if you think mine are less than very specific, then you might benefit another read.

Contrary to your suggestion, my concept has bearly a comparative with their approach. I didnt realize "unique" could be such a subjective term. But I like that you began to tune in on my idea and fashion appropriate tests "re brown dwarf stars". That was promising if I had been afforded the opportunity to answer. You are willing to meet on the same playing field, and form appropriate challengers. Rather than the demand for maths to support a Darwinian hypothesis. I knew that was coming. Charles was about finches beaks adapted optimized to suit seed stocks. An appropriate response to my discussion would be, "why Darwinian mechanisms can or cannot work within the scenario as I set them out?" Or alternatively "why my scenario doesnt stand against observations?". So little to expect, yet I receive nothing resembling.

Yesterday I met a person complaining of having a memory disability and apologizing for being a bit slow, and he gave me a reasonable summation of the theme as I laid it out. So this man offers this in a short simple paragraph, and here nobody offers evidence of comprehension. I have no idea whether you guys followed the plot.

Here's his comment
Shawn" Scientists study Biology and Physics they are discovering about Creation and it's origin this entity is very complex there's a large amount of energy that keeps everything in order
"Shawn" I Apologize for being on y'all site I have a disability short-term memory I love to read just slow but did i get close to what y'all are discussing"

To which I replied
" Please, nothing to apologize for. You're welcome to read and comment here. And your disability isn't slowing you down much. Your summation is good, except that scientists are not studying the similarities between physics and biology. However we are, and I think to good effect"

[Presocratics]

I would suggest you do some science: produce a mathematical model, some testable (ie quantitative - which is why a mathematical model is required) predictions, and then show how well those predictions match observations.

And you will have me fashion and place this where, while my thread remains closed?

[Noclevername]

And you will have me fashion and place this where, while my thread remains closed?

After you get your math and models in order, you can petition the Moderators to re-open the thread based on your preparedness.

[Shaula]

...Their evolutionary mechanisms were pretty nebulous, and if you think mine are less than very specific, then you might benefit another read.

This statement is so wrong that I am having trouble working out how to reply to it. To me it looks like it is pretty much the equivalent of someone pointing at a tree and telling everyone that it is a pickup truck. I genuinely don't know what to say. Because nothing you communicated was specific or well defined.

...An appropriate response to my discussion would be, "why Darwinian mechanisms can or cannot work within the scenario as I set them out?" Or alternatively "why my scenario doesnt stand against observations?". So little to expect, yet I receive nothing resembling.

Because you gave no detail. Hard to argue against magic, because you can just add more magic to fix the problem. That's why we like well defined models in physics.

Anyway. We run the risk of rehashing the arguments from your thread here and this is not the place for it. You have your answer - the mods felt you were engaging in speculation. Everyone who responded in that thread asked for you to provide a scientific frame work (hypotheses, predictions, tests) and you responded with more handwavium. Case closed, really.

[Presocratics]

After you get your math and models in order, you can petition the Moderators to re-open the thread based on your preparedness.

"Math" to represent a Darwinian model that is concerned with evolved physical structures and processes?

Have you read the thread?

[Presocratics]

This statement is so wrong that I am having trouble working out how to reply to it.

Or maybe you just dont comprehend it, and then assume thats because theirs nothing solid to comprehend. This could be on you

[Gillianren]

Could be. Probably isn't. No, I haven't read the thread, but I've read enough ATM to be quite familiar with that claim, that the people in the discussion just don't understand the OP's brilliance.

[Presocratics]

You might as well ask why fusion is so badly tuned that it doesn't make brown dwarf stars ignite.

Brown dwarf stars are stable within the regard of gravitational pressure. However larger stars that would collapse under gravity happen to generate the necessary heat via fusion. Thats the whole point which your statement completely disregards. Its like you didnt understand the point at all.

Its like I said "maybe you just dont comprehend it, and then assume thats because theres nothing solid to comprehend. This could be on you"

[Presocratics]

Could be. Probably isn't. No, I haven't read the thread, but I've read enough ATM to be quite familiar with that claim, that the people in the discussion just don't understand the OP's brilliance.

And you think im a cliche while you're stating that haha lol

[PetersCreek]

Or maybe you just dont comprehend it, and then assume thats because theirs nothing solid to comprehend. This could be on you

...and this is how many ATM proponents get infracted, suspended, and sometimes banned. Be polite. If you wish to participate in the ATM forum, it is your responsibility to communicate your ideas effectively. Blaming your audience for a purported inability to understand is both insulting and intellectually lazy.

[Presocratics]

To tease out possibilities requires a willingness to ask "what if?" Did anybody jump through this hoop and glimpse a method concerning my thread?

[Presocratics]

That is a fair counter to Shaula's assertion that my theme possesses no coherent meaning. Perhaps this is not his field

[PetersCreek]

Why did you post your claims?

[Noclevername]

"Math" to represent a Darwinian model that is concerned with evolved physical structures and processes?

Real biologists do use math in their models of evolution. Physicists who study physical structures and processes definitely do.

[Presocratics]

Real biologists do use math in their models of evolution. Physicists who study physical structures and processes definitely do.

Yes thats fair. However, there are broad aspects of biological evolution that are serviced by description of their circumstances of resources and habitat. So my post focuses on the theme of evolved structures and processes optimized for exploiting an energy resource. Then using that as a comparative.

So somebody comes in demanding math. for what relevance? What are we talking about this for?

[Shaula]

That is a fair counter to Shaula's assertion that my theme possesses no coherent meaning. Perhaps this is not his field

Both here and in the thread you have chosen to ignore the majority of what I have said (something I've told you before I rather dislike) and instead question my knowledge and comprehension - I see no value in further engagement on this. If you cannot keep a discussion civil and focused on the topic rather than the participants then I'm not minded to carry it on.

[Noclevername]

So somebody comes in demanding math. for what relevance? What are we talking about this for?

Because this is a science forum. Mathematics is a vital part of scientific modeling, data, and theory. Without showing the math, your understanding of the mainstream topic will not be given much validity by real scientists.

[Swift]

And this thread is closed

Presocratics, Feedback is not for further debating your ATM idea and it is certainly not for questioning the abilities of other members. Our ATM forum has very strict rules and requirements as to what is required of advocates who present their non-mainstream ideas. They are explained in the stickies in ATM, and they were explained to you in your thread (and past threads). And any examination of other threads in ATM would have shown the same requirements.

In spite of warnings, you failed to meet those requirements. You had your chance to present your idea and now its done.

If at some point in the future you have further developed your idea, for example with mathematics or actual physical tests or evidence, you may ask permission to represent your idea. Do not do so without first asking for that permission.

If these requirements are too restrictive for your speculations... well, its a big Internet.