Simplicity as a Primary Condition of Nature and Evolution.

[socratus]

Simplicity as a Primary Condition of Nature and Evolution.
=.
The evolution of Nature is going from simple to complex therefore
I will take the simplest physical parameters in order to explain
the primary conditions of evolution in Nature.
1.
The simplest reference frame is two dimensions (2D).
There are two kinds of 2D: Euclidian (relative) and
Pseudo-Euclidian (absolute according to SRT).
What Euclidian 2D is - everybody knows.
What Pseudo-Euclidian (negative - 2D) is - nobody knows.
In my opinion (- 2D) is Zero Vacuum reference frame: T= - 273,15 . . . . .
2.
In this simplest negative reference frame (- 2D) only flat - circle
particles can exist: c/d = 3,14 . . . . and they are the simplest original /
primary quantum particles of Nature.
3.
These quantum particles in their simplicity contain their own
inner – natural power / energy and impulses: h and h*=h/2pi.
4.
These particles obey "the law of conservation and transformation energy".
This law is not book-keeper's calculations of "debit – credit".
This law means:
the simplest particles can keep and somehow transform their energy.
=.
Only on these simplest physical parameters (T= - 273,15 . . , c/d = 3,14 . . . ,
h and h*=h/2pi ) and "the law of conservation and transformation energy"
can be constructed the reliable castle for Quantum theory.
==..
More than 300 years ago Newton wrote:
" For the basic problem of philosophy seems to be to discover
the forces of nature from the phenomena of motions
and then to demonstrate the other phenomena from these forces."
This Newton's offer is carried out fully in Quantum physics.
==...
From the state of Simplicity was created and evolved
the complex World of Matter, Consciousness, Knowledge.
==..
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus.
==..

[Greylorn Ell]

You began with a good notion and quickly fucked it up.

Look for "functional" simplicity rather than arbitrary simplicity. A 2D universe cannot produce functional elements (like eyes and neurons). If you were truly looking for geometrical simplicity you'd start with a 1D (and equally useless) universe.

Have you taken a serious physics course? If not, it is time to remedy that deficiency.

Do you have any reasons to believe that a 2D universe would be functional? If so, share them and describe potentially useful functions.

Else, go away and change your prescription.

Greylorn

[Obvious Leo]

If you were truly looking for geometrical simplicity you'd start with a 1D (and equally useless) universe.

I guess that all depends what sort of dimension we're talking about. I completely agree that one spatial dimension would be neither use nor ornament but one time dimension would be perfectly adequate to requirements. Since the subject of the OP refers to the notion of evolution we needn't bother considering spatial dimensions as relevant to the topic. Evolution is a process and processes are entirely temporal phenomena.

[Greylorn Ell]

If you were truly looking for geometrical simplicity you'd start with a 1D (and equally useless) universe.

I guess that all depends what sort of dimension we're talking about. I completely agree that one spatial dimension would be neither use nor ornament but one time dimension would be perfectly adequate to requirements. Since the subject of the OP refers to the notion of evolution we needn't bother considering spatial dimensions as relevant to the topic. Evolution is a process and processes are entirely temporal phenomena.

Have long conversations w/Socratus and others equally as ignorant of physics. Or read my book. I'm done trying to converse with people unaware how deeply their ignorance runs.
Greylorn

[Obvious Leo]

Greylorn. The philosophy of physics has been my life's work and I'm an old fart so don't underestimate me. I know what physics is and I also know what evolution is because evolution towards informational complexity is the fundamental self-organising principle of the universe itself. However evolution is not the spatio-temporal phenomenon you imagine it to be. Evolution is a PROCESS and processes are purely temporal phenomena which require no spatial extension in the absence of an observer of them. If you wish to disagree then by all means do so but I caution you that I stand ready to wipe the floor with any pulpit pronouncements attesting to your genius. In a philosophy forum one is expected to substantiate one's opinion with reasoned argument. If you reckon you're up for it, bring it on, as they say in the popular culture.

[Greylorn Ell]

Greylorn. The philosophy of physics has been my life's work and I'm an old fart so don't underestimate me. I know what physics is and I also know what evolution is because evolution towards informational complexity is the fundamental self-organising principle of the universe itself. However evolution is not the spatio-temporal phenomenon you imagine it to be. Evolution is a PROCESS and processes are purely temporal phenomena which require no spatial extension in the absence of an observer of them. If you wish to disagree then by all means do so but I caution you that I stand ready to wipe the floor with any pulpit pronouncements attesting to your genius. In a philosophy forum one is expected to substantiate one's opinion with reasoned argument. If you reckon you're up for it, bring it on, as they say in the popular culture.

Leo,

Why don't you study the C-value Enigma and in that context, explain why you imagine evolution is moving toward complexity? I suspect that to do so you will need to invent your own personal definition of "complexity."

Then explain how you know what I imagine evolution to be? Do you read minds when you're not bullshitting? If so, get more practice.

At the core of the biological evolution process, DNA molecules are changing. These molecules exist in 3D space, and change sequentially, and according to Darwinian truth, randomly and spontaneously.

Thus the changes to DNA are effectively time-independent (non-temporal), like the states within a computer, depending upon the completion and stabilization of one state-change before moving on to the next.

Your notion of "process" must be entirely your own invention. Dictionaries seem to regard "process" as time-independent (non-temporal). Achieving old fart status does not spare you from the normal use of common language, however much you'd like to twist it to make your points. Consider yourself underestimated.

Greylorn

[Obvious Leo]

Greylorn. Thank you for your response. I am new to this site and thus I'm still feeling my way around the place. I'm a rather busy man and thus a part of this exploratory process necessarily includes finding out which people are worthwhile engaging with and which are not. One down, Christ knows how many to go.

[Greylorn Ell]

Greylorn. Thank you for your response. I am new to this site and thus I'm still feeling my way around the place. I'm a rather busy man and thus a part of this exploratory process necessarily includes finding out which people are worthwhile engaging with and which are not. One down, Christ knows how many to go.

Leo,

Only if your belief that J.C. exists, knows, and cares about information yet to be developed is correct. If you hold that belief you'll enjoy conversing with Immanuel Can. Kindly let me know if you find someone here with a fully functional mind actually open to ideas.

Greylorn

[Obvious Leo]

Kindly let me know if you find someone here with a fully functional mind actually open to ideas.

It's a bit early for me to say but it's not looking all that promising so far.

[Greylorn Ell]

Kindly let me know if you find someone here with a fully functional mind actually open to ideas.

It's a bit early for me to say but it's not looking all that promising so far.

Leo,

If you're looking for someone dumb enough to agree with statements like, "Evolution is a PROCESS and processes are purely temporal phenomena which require no spatial extension in the absence of an observer of them," nonsense that you seem unwilling to defend, you should be able to find hundreds of them on this very forum.

The problem is that they all have their own bullshit agenda, which they, like you, will assert but won't bother to defend. So if you're looking for a friend, why not pretend to agree with Trixie? This will make him happy and you'll have a new pen pal.

Don't pretend that you're looking for someone with a functional mind. You only need someone who can form sentences.

Greylorn

[Obvious Leo]

Greylorn. I'll say this only once. I am immune to personal insult and refuse to respond to it. If you have an argument to put with respect to anything I say then I welcome you to put it. I'm not here to play childish games.

[socratus]

You began with a good notion and quickly fucked it up.

Look for "functional" simplicity rather than arbitrary simplicity.
A 2D universe cannot produce functional elements (like eyes and neurons).
If you were truly looking for geometrical simplicity you'd start with a 1D
(and equally useless) universe.

Greylorn

Greylorn think : 1-D is simpler than 2-D.
The answer.
The 1-D figure is explained by "theory of string-particle".
The result is written in the book "The trouble with Physics" by Lee Smolin.
#
Other wrote: a triangle is simpler than circle.
The answer.
The triangle has angles.
To create angles needs some kind of forces.
Without forces every flat geometrical figure would change into circle.
==..

[Obvious Leo]

1-D is simpler than 2-D.

This is the point I was trying to make. Obviously in the Cartesian space 1D is simply a zero-volume point and such a notion is meaningless in terms of its explanatory value. However evolution is a temporal phenomenon and the extension of temporal phenomena into the Cartesian space is entirely tangential and observer dependent. In other words the order in which events occur takes precedence over where they occur. Evolution is modelled quite exquisitely in John Conway's Game of Life, where successive iterations in a fractal time dimension are modelled visually in a 2D Euclidean plane. If you can imagine simply removing the spatial dimensions and retaining the time dimension you can easily see how simple systems become more complex simply because they cannot do otherwise.

[socratus]

You began with a good notion and quickly fucked it up.

Look for "functional" simplicity rather than arbitrary simplicity.
A 2D universe cannot produce functional elements (like eyes and neurons).
If you were truly looking for geometrical simplicity you'd start with a 1D
(and equally useless) universe.

Greylorn

Greylorn think : 1-D is simpler than 2-D.
The answer.
The 1-D figure is explained by "theory of string-particle".
The result is written in the book "The trouble with Physics" by Lee Smolin.
#
Other wrote: a triangle is simpler than circle.
The answer.
The triangle has angles.
To create angles needs some kind of forces.
Without forces every flat geometrical figure would change into circle.
==..

Once again,
The 1-D (line with Planck's length but without thickness) is explained
by "theory of string-particle". Theorists try to understand 1-D string in 11-D.
The result is written in the book "The trouble with Physics" by Lee Smolin.
In the others words:
Where is Alice?
Alice is in the 1-D String, at 11-D Wonderland.
===…

[Obvious Leo]

I think we can safely forget about string theory at long last, socratus, and its passing will go un-mourned. Smolin pulls no punches about his opinion of such nonsense but throughout the community of physics the rats are deserting the sinking ship in droves. Hardly anybody would define themselves as a string theorist nowadays and most of those who formerly did are now claiming they never really meant it. In terms of its scientific credibility string theory always ranked a long way behind "creation science". Strictly for the fantasists only.