Space-Time and Theory of Evolution

[atanu]

Interesting wording. We could ask, 'how do we apply the fact that the moon isn't a cube, to moon cubism?'
Well, the fact that space time is the parameter of the 'reality', in which ''theory of evolution'' paradigm is set in, it's problematic to try to apply it in any logical sense. 'Reality', is very problematic for t.o.e. .
The thing is, there are other issues, like space alone, that cause problems for the "t.o.e."

So, basically, you wouldn't apply a paradigm to another paradigm that it contradicts. Now, this doesn't mean that our favorite cartoon friend, the walking mudfish, never jumped up one day, and ran inland. It just means the inferences one might draw from theorizing that our muddy friend ran inland, should conform to the parameters in which they are in /space-time

Thank you, Syncretic. Can you please explain the statement highlighted in blue above?

 

[YmirGF]

Thank you, Syncretic. Can you please explain the statement highlighted in blue above?

Indeed. The answer to that one ought to make for hilarious reading.

 

[YmirGF]

The problem with this 'idea', though a lovely 'guess', is that there is no inference indicating that ''probability''. /Among some other things/. You have one unit, /earth,, logically, and that is the basis on which to determine the probability of the 'occurence', that is being theorized as somehow 'happening', given 'enough time and space'. Our astute astronomers have not found the brick wall surrounding the premised ''space'', and there isn't currently another ''instance'' another 'occurence' /spatial distance,, for one to start theorizing on how much 'space' , might be needed to start guessing at equations.
Currently, we're at ''nothing to indicate the theory/idea''. That number may drop a bit, at some point. Keep in mind, it isn't going to drop to any levels that one might 'just presume', the theory/idea to be ''likely'', but it's better than where the statement is currently.

Though I have very good reading comprehension and am blessed with an IQ well above 140 could you dumb this down for me. It doesn't make a lick of sense from my perspective.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

In starting the thread, I had in mind the red highlighted part from your post shown above. And I also had in mind an idea just opposite of the blue highlight. In my understanding, the biological scale is mental-sensual representational scale and is conditioned in a particular fashion.

Thanks for describing exactly what you mean by the value of applying concepts from relativity/spacetime to the theory of evolution (particularly as I'm sure you already did this at least once in this thread before, but I responded to the OP without reading most of the other posts, which is never a good idea but temptingly easy).

I have two points:

1. When I said that two clocks may not show same 'present', I meant the following, highlighted red below.

http://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module4_time_dilation.htm
Simultaneity
Having clocks that run at different rates leads to other strange effects: simultaneity is relative. Whether or not two things are simultaneous depends upon your frame of reference. The time order of events that are close together in time but distant in space can be different in different frames.

Right. Simultaneity is relative and there is no "now" in any absolute sense. However, ifs this were extended without qualification Einstein would have despised his own theories: relativity (special or general) would violate causality. As it is, although in general relativity there exists ways in which the formal framework of the theory can yield backwards causation and other causality violations, these have never been observed and aren't allowed in the spacetime of special relativity.
Simultaneous events can be defined for different observers who are "close enough" to be described/observed via experiment/observation (this is particularly easy with special relativity, as one can select an observers reference frame and construct a lightcone that will reveal what "now" is to that observer and its relation to the "now" of others whose "positions" in spacetime are known: every reference frame connected to the origin of the lightcone of a given reference frame are "nows" (and events falling into the timelike regions can't occur simultaneously for any observer).
On Earth, the differences between observers' lightcones are small enough that not only can we ignore them, it would be hard to detect them if we wanted to. As for living systems elsewhere in the universe, again special (and therefore general) relativity tell us we must ignore any would-be observers distant from the Earth until they "move" within the Earth's "lightcone". To illustrate, consider one useful thing that special relativity allows us to calculate: how far in our past the lightwaves from a star seen in our sky "now" were actually emitted. So, for example, when we observe a star dying (its light vanishing from the night sky) "now", we can use special relativity to determine how far in our past this event occurred from the "perspective" of the star and any observers nearby to the event of its "dying".
Likewise, if there exist entities on some distant planet, relativity tells us we can know NOTHING about them until they (or some signal) reaches us, and that this cannot happen faster-than-light. So an alien civilization may emerge, flourish, and die during some spacetime region that is separated from us by some time-like region, but we can't know anything about it or be influenced by it until, like the light from a star, some signal from this civilization becomes "now" for us.

Of course in context of a single reference frame, my question of OP is meaningless. But are we not assuming that there is no other reference but ours. How do we know for sure that there is no other frame 'right here and now'? My question is for such a hypothetical situation.

There are uncountably many different reference frames in every region of spacetime. Every person on Earth can be described by infinitely many reference frames, but we generally pick some useful point like center-of-mass and associate the reference frame for the system in question with that point. If "we" (humans) had only our own reference frame, we could never experimentally test or provide empirical support for relativity. It's just that observers on Earth are close enough in space to make differences among reference frames so infinitesimal we can't detect them unless they involve things moving close to the speed of light (e.g., light).
We are free to consider the 3D space and associated "past" and "future" that is "seen" by an observer far away from us in spacetime, but as we can't know anything about said observers until they or some signal from them enter into our "now", I don't see how this could matter from an evolutionary perspective (at least until/if some such signal is found).

 

[Scott C.]

There is simply no evidence that any "who" was involved, so why presume there was? It is simply conjecture opined by limited minds that are incapable of seeing the larger processes as work. God is the dumbed-down answer. Hopefully, we have grown enough as a species to be able to appreciate far richer and far more satisfying answers.

Minds far more intelligent and open to learning than you apparently realize, when they see how incredibly large are the processes at work, are strengthened in their faith in God. A dumbed-down explanation for faith, is to attribute it to limited minds.

 

[YmirGF]

Minds far more intelligent and open to learning than you apparently realize, when they see how incredibly large are the processes at work, are strengthened in their faith in God. A dumbed-down explanation for faith, is to attribute it to limited minds.

You are always welcome to believe what you wish my Mormon friend. There is no harm. I am quite open to the idea that I could be quite wrong, as I have already seen the source of your signature and have gone well past. Take solace in whatever gives you comfort.

 

[Thief]

Nevertheless, it still exists.

nay....not a force or a substance
grew up with this

check wiki......just for fun

 

[leibowde84]

nay....not a force or a substance

Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[Thief]

Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

and your shallow denial does nothing

 

[leibowde84]

and your shallow denial does nothing

You are the one denying that it exists, not me.

 

[Desert Snake]

You are the one denying that it exists, not me.

Time doesn't exist in a manner that would help the theory of evolution, in any manner, that you would recognize the theory of evolution. /it contradicts many of the ideas in the theory. So, he actually is right, in this context.

 

[Desert Snake]

Thank you, Syncretic. Can you please explain the statement highlighted in blue above?

I think that that is for another thread. Generally has to do with things like cause, and probability; ideas that t. of evolution requires to support various ideas it proposes.

 

[leibowde84]

Time doesn't exist in a manner that would help the theory of evolution, in any manner, that you would recognize the theory of evolution. /it contradicts many of the ideas in the theory. So, he actually is right, in this context.

First, we are discussing space time, not time itself. And, how does time contradict the ToE?

 

[Desert Snake]

First, we are discussing space time, not time itself. And, how does time contradict the ToE?

Nope, pretty sure that you were discussing just time. That's how it got to 'math' being real.
The time that you're referring to is just a construct by which to measure something happening. There is no 'cause', inferred, to it, at all. No evidence of that. You need all sorts of 'cause', for t.of evolution, and the theory doesn't have any reasoning for that. It's just supposition.

 

[leibowde84]

Nope, pretty sure that you were discussing just time. That's how it got to 'math' being real.
The time that you're referring to is just a construct by which to measure something happening. There is no 'cause', inferred, to it, at all. No evidence of that. You need all sorts of 'cause', for t.of evolution, and the theory doesn't have any reasoning for that. It's just supposition.

Nope, we were discussing space time. I made that very clear a couple of times. Good try though.

 

[Desert Snake]

The entire contextual discussion

time does not exist.
space is real enough....though it is made of nothing

evolution is a motion
the measure has nothing to do with Man's sense of time( a nonexistent entity)

Thief delineates his time comment from a space inference. I understood it.
(the other statements, not sure what he is inferring, /regardless

You obviously don't get the mathematical concept of "space-time" being discussed here. To respond to his question with a comment about how time, on its own, doesn't exist makes this overwhelmingly clear. It is a mathematical concept, which most certainly exists.

space-time
noun
PHYSICS

1. the concepts of time and three-dimensional space regarded as fused in a four-dimensional continuum.

In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single interwoven continuum.

You shift it to 'space-time'. That's great, it's in the title of the thread, but what is the point

math is a cognitive construct made by Man to serve Man

Now the concept of 'math' is brought up, or rather responded to via your inference to it

Nevertheless, it still exists.

Your response. Now, though it does exist conceptually, it is a /tool to measure things, existing in and of itself is pretty arbitrary

nay....not a force or a substance
grew up with this

check wiki......just for fun

so forth you're now discussing 'math'

Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

your response. Yes and no, a lot of things exist conceptually

and your shallow denial does nothing

thiefs response

You are the one denying that it exists, not me.

yours

Time doesn't exist in a manner that would help the theory of evolution, in any manner, that you would recognize the theory of evolution. /it contradicts many of the ideas in the theory. So, he actually is right, in this context.

My statements, now, notice that I have followed the original inference from Thiefs starting presentation, where he separates the time from space, for a contextual discussion

First, we are discussing space time, not time itself. And, how does time contradict the ToE?

Your response to me

Nope, pretty sure that you were discussing just time. That's how it got to 'math' being real.
The time that you're referring to is just a construct by which to measure something happening. There is no 'cause', inferred, to it, at all. No evidence of that. You need all sorts of 'cause', for t.of evolution, and the theory doesn't have any reasoning for that. It's just supposition.

Mine

Nope, we were discussing space time. I made that very clear a couple of times. Good try though.

Yours. You couldn't be discussing 'space-time', because Thief stated that space exists. so, in order for the debate to make any sense, you would have either had to argue that point, /with thief, or simply move on to discussing time itself,/and hence the 'math' existing, discussion/, which if you read the discussion, one would infer you had.
/

 

[Acim]

If math exists, because mental constructs do 'exist,' then God surely exists.

 

[leibowde84]

The entire contextual discussion


Thief delineates his time comment from a space inference. I understood it.
(the other statements, not sure what he is inferring, /regardless


You shift it to 'space-time'. That's great, it's in the title of the thread, but what is the point


Now the concept of 'math' is brought up, or rather responded to via your inference to it


Your response. Now, though it does exist conceptually, it is a /tool to measure things, existing in and of itself is pretty arbitrary


so forth you're now discussing 'math'


your response. Yes and no, a lot of things exist conceptually


thiefs response


yours


My statements, now, notice that I have followed the original inference from Thiefs starting presentation, where he separates the time from space, for a contextual discussion


Your response to me


Mine


Yours. You couldn't be discussing 'space-time', because Thief stated that space exists. so, in order for the debate to make any sense, you would have either had to argue that point, /with thief, or simply move on to discussing time itself,/and hence the 'math' existing, discussion/, which if you read the discussion, one would infer you had.
/

You didn't go back far enough. You need to go back to the comment that thief responded to initially. Thief changed the subject to time itself. I changed it back, as spacetime is the subject of the thread.

 

[Thief]

If math exists, because mental constructs do 'exist,' then God surely exists.

yeah.....sort of....

I don't think of God as a mathematician.
He needs no kind of math system to comprehend what He did (creation)

Man uses a number grid to get an idea about all things around him
and Man is easily duped into believing what he puts on a chalkboard

Space is real
movement is real

Time is a cognitive device created by Man to serve Man
time is not a force or substance

 

[Desert Snake]

You didn't go back far enough. You need to go back to the comment that thief responded to initially. Thief changed the subject to time itself. I changed it back, as spacetime is the subject of the thread.

That's fine, but what I stated doesn't change anything. You are getting 'contradict' mixed up with 'irrelevant', 'different thing', apples & oranges', etc. The real question is , what does 'time' have to do with the theory of evolution? Well, nothing. Nothing can be inferred from it, to help the theory. That's the problem, in general, here, you can't infer a lot of of things that are just arbitrarily inferred in the theory, and those inferences also carry the problem of inferring in themselves, false or non-reality based assumptions. /which you stated yourself, the theory doesn't even address/. It's sort of like asking me to prove that pink unicorns don't exist, when there is nothing to indicate that they do exist.