Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

iahag · Nov 5, 2006, 02:43 pm

I once proposed to a man that;

"Everything that exists, even the way these things exist with one another (forces etc), is in 'existence' because these things are in a universal/temporary balance with all of the factors that permit its continued/temporary existence".

He told me it was a logical fallacy. I failed to see why. He said 'Its based on the assumption that everything has a factor that governs it'. Now I can see how some things, non-arbitrary and qualitative concepts, such as evolution may perhaps have no clear quantititave factors, but they certainly have many qualitive factors.

I will now state some propositions that must be true for evolution to exist.
( -- = implied requirement of proposition above)

- Life exists. It is in a state of 'living'.

-- Life started in the first place.

-- A suitable environment for life exists for enough time (determined by many factors governing the species in question, reproduction rates etc) to allow evolution to take place.

- Random* mutations occur in offspring.

-- The species in question reproduces itself in some way. By this I mean, the species changes in some random fashion provided it is mortal.

--- The species is mortal, so that it does have factors which govern its continued existence. It must 'live' and 'die' in some way as it travels through time.

and many others I cant think of...

*Random being the defined illusion of a random event. It may very well have hidden prefactors we have not seen.

So I suppose the question is: Does everything have a factor(s) which permits its continued existence?
--- Or perhaps there are more things you see wrong with my statement...

Let us suppose there is something which exists, which doesnt have any factors at all to govern its existence. Would this, by definition, exist at all? I mean, on the assumption this 'thing' was created at some point in time, how would it come to existence if nothing in the universe changed to allow this thing to be created. (Nothing changes to create it because change of such things would imply factors for its initial creation).

JohnMK · Nov 5, 2006, 03:11 pm

I think you and your friend might be talking past each other. Move beyond the semantic minutiae . . . ask him if he is a supporter, in general, of determinism.

gallo · Nov 10, 2006, 04:06 pm

Quote:

Quote by: iahag

I will now state some propositions that must be true for evolution to exist.
( -- = implied requirement of proposition above)

- Life exists. It is in a state of 'living'.

-- Life started in the first place.

-- A suitable environment for life exists for enough time (determined by many factors governing the species in question, reproduction rates etc) to allow evolution to take place.

- Random* mutations occur in offspring.

-- The species in question reproduces itself in some way. By this I mean, the species changes in some random fashion provided it is mortal.

--- The species is mortal, so that it does have factors which govern its continued existence. It must 'live' and 'die' in some way as it travels through time.

and many others I cant think of...

But others in population genetics have thought of them. You are a bit off and have missed much. To apply your requirements you have made the following assumptions (although you may not be aware of it): a diploid population, sexually reproducing, with discrete generations. In that case, evolution will not occur in a randomly mating population of infinite size, with no selection, no mutation, and no migration. If just one of the above is not true then the population is evolving, i.e., it is undergoing a change in the genetic frequency of alleles over time.

The above are, of course, idealized conditions that have been defined to facilitate mathematical modeling of evolutionary populations. They can never be true of every genetic characteristic in a given population, so for all practical purposes, evolution is always going on. However, if those conditions are true, then after a single generation the genotype frequencies at a single gene locus will become fixed at a particular equilibrium value.

I'm not sure how that is supposed to apply to whatever point you were trying to make.

iahag · Nov 10, 2006, 10:49 pm

I wasnt making a point. That was merely an example. I was trying to open the question as to whether everything in the universe has factors which govern its continued existence - and whether this notion can be dismissed theoretically.

Nov 5, 2006, 02:43 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
iahag Skeptic of Skeptics Location: Bristol/Plymouth Posts: 219	Theoretical falsification of what I consider to be an axiom. I once proposed to a man that; "Everything that exists, even the way these things exist with one another (forces etc), is in 'existence' because these things are in a universal/temporary balance with all of the factors that permit its continued/temporary existence". He told me it was a logical fallacy. I failed to see why. He said 'Its based on the assumption that everything has a factor that governs it'. Now I can see how some things, non-arbitrary and qualitative concepts, such as evolution may perhaps have no clear quantititave factors, but they certainly have many qualitive factors. I will now state some propositions that must be true for evolution to exist. ( -- = implied requirement of proposition above) - Life exists. It is in a state of 'living'. -- Life started in the first place. -- A suitable environment for life exists for enough time (determined by many factors governing the species in question, reproduction rates etc) to allow evolution to take place. - Random* mutations occur in offspring. -- The species in question reproduces itself in some way. By this I mean, the species changes in some random fashion provided it is mortal. --- The species is mortal, so that it does have factors which govern its continued* existence. It must 'live' and 'die' in some way as it travels through time.* and many others I cant think of... Random being the defined illusion of a random event. It may very well have hidden prefactors we have not seen. So I suppose the question is: Does everything have a factor(s) which permits its continued existence?* --- Or perhaps there are more things you see wrong with my statement... Let us suppose there is something which exists, which doesnt have any factors at all to govern its existence. Would this, by definition, exist at all? I mean, on the assumption this 'thing' was created at some point in time, how would it come to existence if nothing in the universe changed to allow this thing to be created. (Nothing changes to create it because change of such things would imply factors for its initial creation). The more painless an exercise, the more likely you are of doing it. The more painful an exercise, the more likely you are of learning from it.

Nov 5, 2006, 03:11 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
JohnMK Laissez-Faire Location: Seattle Posts: 539	I think you and your friend might be talking past each other. Move beyond the semantic minutiae . . . ask him if he is a supporter, in general, of determinism. "I can't listen to that much Wagner. I start getting the urge to conquer Poland." - Woody Allen

Nov 10, 2006, 10:49 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
iahag Skeptic of Skeptics Location: Bristol/Plymouth Posts: 219	I wasnt making a point. That was merely an example. I was trying to open the question as to whether everything in the universe has factors which govern its continued existence - and whether this notion can be dismissed theoretically. The more painless an exercise, the more likely you are of doing it. The more painful an exercise, the more likely you are of learning from it.