(February 6, 2015 at 3:41 pm)Heywood Wrote: Chas is wrong because something true about all polygons would be true of all triangles. I can't make his error any more clear than that.

True.

But everything true about all polygons is not true of all triangles. Everything true about rectangles is not true of triangles.

Quote:If something is true about all the elements of the set I am talking about, it is true of biological evolution provided biological evolution is an element of the set I am talking about.

But your set does not include the extra elements that are true of evolution that differentiate it from the other things that fit your set.

(February 6, 2015 at 4:05 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(February 6, 2015 at 3:41 pm)Heywood Wrote: Chas is wrong because something true about all polygons would be true of all triangles. I can't make his error any more clear than that.

True.

False.

Quote:But everything true about all polygons is not true of all triangles. Everything true about rectangles is not true of triangles.

You have that inverted. Everything true about all polygons is true for all triangles and all rectangles and all the rest.
However, what is true for all triangles is not necessarily true for all polygons nor all rectangles.

Quote:

Quote:If something is true about all the elements of the set I am talking about, it is true of biological evolution provided biological evolution is an element of the set I am talking about.


[quote]If something is true about all the elements of the set I am talking about, it is true of biological evolution provided biological evolution is an element of the set I am talking about.

But your set does not include the extra elements that are true of evolution that differentiate it from the other things that fit your set.

True

(February 6, 2015 at 4:13 pm)Chas Wrote:

(February 6, 2015 at 4:05 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: True.

False.

Quote:But everything true about all polygons is not true of all triangles. Everything true about rectangles is not true of triangles.

You have that inverted. Everything true about all polygons is true for all triangles and all rectangles and all the rest.
However, what is true for all triangles is not necessarily true for all polygons nor all rectangles.

Quote:But your set does not include the extra elements that are true of evolution that differentiate it from the other things that fit your set.

True

Thanks for the correction.

I shouldn't post while working on a major router outage at work.

(February 6, 2015 at 4:25 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: I shouldn't post while working on a major router outage at work.

Yabut, can you say "router outage" three times fast?

Uter routage

(February 6, 2015 at 4:05 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: But your set does not include the extra elements that are true of evolution that differentiate it from the other things that fit your set.

So what? Trabants don't have airbags but they still belong in the set of all cars.

Biological evolution belongs in the set I have defined. You guys agree that it is then turn around an argue that it isn't. Stop your flip flopping. If you agree that biological evolution is in the set I have defined then think about this. One these two propositions must be true about the set I have defined.

Proposition 1: all elements of the set I have defined require intellects for their implementation.
Proposition 2: all elements of the set I have defined do not require intellects for their implementation.

Now Proposition 2 can be proved by observing one element in the set I have defined and finding it did not need an intellect to be implemented. Should be easy peasy for you to do if proposition 2 is true. If you prove proposition 2 to be true, you also falsify proposition 1.

Further Proposition 1 cannot be proved true until every element is inspected and found that it required an intellect to be implemented. That is impossible for us to do just as it is impossible for use to measure the speed of every photon in traveling through a vacuum to prove all of them travel at 299,792,458 meters per second. However we can conclude that every photon traveling through a vacuum travels at 299,792,458 if everyone we do observe travels at that speed. The same is true for elements in the set I have defined. If everyone we inspect turns out to require intellect, then we can conclude that all of them require intellect even though we can't inspect each one of them.

The fact that were into this 100+ pages and you guys still can't come up with an observation which supports proposition 2(and therefore falsifies proposition 1) leads me to believe you never will.

---

(February 6, 2015 at 4:13 pm)Chas Wrote:

(February 6, 2015 at 4:05 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

Heywood Wrote:Chas is wrong because something true about all polygons would be true of all triangles. I can't make his error any more clear than that.

True.

False.

Chas, your fail here is monumental.

Just so fucking wrong, I do not where to begin. For starters, your propositions cannot be applied after the set is created and have any meaning. The set is the result of the proposition. Make a set of evolution that is a direct result of intellect and the biological group cannot be included in the Heywood set until it is established that biological evolution was a result of intellect. A set is not defined until the rules of the set are and then only those items that correspond to the rules can be included.

(February 6, 2015 at 5:41 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(February 6, 2015 at 4:05 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: But your set does not include the extra elements that are true of evolution that differentiate it from the other things that fit your set.

So what? Trabants don't have airbags but they still belong in the set of all cars.

Biological evolution belongs in the set I have defined. You guys agree that it is then turn around an argue that it isn't. Stop your flip flopping. If you agree that biological evolution is in the set I have defined then think about this. One these two propositions must be true about the set I have defined.

Proposition 1: all elements of the set I have defined require intellects for their implementation.

Proposition 2: all elements of the set I have defined do not require intellects for their implementation.

Proposition 3: some elements do and some don't.

You have mistakenly not included this.

Quote:Now Proposition 2 can be proved by observing one element in the set I have defined and finding it did not need an intellect to be implemented.

Done. The imperfect replication of replicators leads inevitably to change. Some will be more successful and some less.

Quote:Should be easy peasy for you to do if proposition 2 is true. If you prove proposition 2 to be true, you also falsify proposition 1.

Proposition 3 is true.

Quote:Further Proposition 1 cannot be proved true until every element is inspected and found that it required an intellect to be implemented. That is impossible for us to do just as it is impossible for use to measure the speed of every photon in traveling through a vacuum to prove all of them travel at 299,792,458 meters per second.

Quote:It has been proved within the Theory of Electromagnetism.

However we can conclude that every photon traveling through a vacuum travels at 299,792,458 if everyone we do observe travels at that speed. The same is true for elements in the set I have defined. If everyone we inspect turns out to require intellect, then we can conclude that all of them require intellect even though we can't inspect each one of them.

Yet you refuse to inspect biological evolution.

Quote:The fact that were into this 100+ pages and you guys still can't come up with an observation which supports proposition 2(and therefore falsifies proposition 1) leads me to believe you never will.

We have. It's called biological evolution. The way it works has been described to you and I have asked you what in that needs an intellect. Since you haven't responded, it is obvious that you can't.

(February 6, 2015 at 5:48 pm)IATIA Wrote: Just so fucking wrong, I do not where to begin. For starters, your propositions cannot be applied after the set is created and have any meaning.

Rubbish

(February 6, 2015 at 5:48 pm)IATIA Wrote: The set is the result of the proposition.

More rubbish, the set is the result of the definition.

(February 6, 2015 at 5:48 pm)IATIA Wrote: Make a set of evolution that is a direct result of intellect and the biological group cannot be included in the Heywood set until it is established that biological evolution was a result of intellect. A set is not defined until the rules of the set are and then only those items that correspond to the rules can be included.

The set I defined exists, It is reasonable, you have to deal with it. Pretending its not there doesn't make it go away. If you don't want biological evolution to be part of the set I have defined, then show that biological evolution does not contain all these elements: Replication, Heritable traits, Change, Selection.

You've actually tried that already by claiming reproduction is not replication....a claim which is also rubbish.

(February 6, 2015 at 5:41 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(February 6, 2015 at 4:13 pm)Chas Wrote: False.

Chas, your fail here is monumental.

You do not understand set theory. Really. In fact, you are a moron.

That was not your assertion about sets. You want to imply that by proving something about a subset.

You did not quote my full answer, you disingenuous ass.

Chas Wrote:You have that inverted. Everything true about all polygons is true for all triangles and all rectangles and all the rest.
However, what is true for all triangles is not necessarily true for all polygons nor all rectangles.