How do mutations code sequence to symbols?

Cooperton wants and needs answers. Science can't yet provide the answers to the questions Cooperton is asking, but the bible can, and that is where s/he has turned.

It does not matter to Cooperton that the bulk of the scientific solution is proven fact - what matters most to him/her is that it cannot answer the minority, but also the biggest and most important questions.

People are attracted to fringe beliefs all over the world. From Scientology to Japanese suicide cults to creationism to the Flat Earth Society, people want to belong to something and some people want to belong to the most fringe cult they can get into.

Cooperton knows creationism is a minority position, and maybe that is all the more appealing. Who knows why otherwise sane, logical and methodical people like Cooperton would choose to devote their energy defending something so preposterous.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: dragonridr

Cooperton's statements repeatedly (and ad nauseam) say that evolutionary biology teaches that humans are derived from pond scum and mutant apes. What evolutionary biology actually says is that life on this planet has a common ancestor and that speciation separates the various types of life forms. How life came to be on this planet is unknown - and may never be known.

He's been trained well by that crackpot cult. Holding his feet to the fire to produce the evidence reinforces the fact that he's a fraud and a liar.

About oddities of life on this planet, this article appeared a few days ago. Very intriguing.

Life found beneath Antarctic ice sheet 'shouldn't be there'

www.newscientist.com...

Nice link i missed that thank you. As far as cooperton ive shown over and over his statements are wrong. I already discussed the mutant ape thing telling him evolution doesnt claim we evolved from apes only that at one point we have shared a common ancestor in a species. Species continue to evolve I explained the methods this occurs when he seems to think mutation was the only method I showed him the others. He thinks he understands science but it seems his entire education involves creationist websites and he doesnt realize they lied to him.

a reply to: TerraLiga

My ideas can be simplified to the thought that mind made matter, rather than the other way around. The most relevant empirical evidence for this is the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics which states that the mind is imperative for the wave-function collapse into material constructs.

I will be taking a break from this site for about a month or so. I wish you all the best of luck on your search for truth.

a reply to: cooperton

Show us a mind existing outside of the brain?
The mind is material and exists with the particles that we call matter.

Electrical is material.
Chemical is material.

Nothing of a mind is supernatural... that we know of.

I will let the science guys (unisex term) respond to the double spit experiment. They can explain it better... way better.

And im man enough to admit it.

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: TerraLiga

My ideas can be simplified to the thought that mind made matter, rather than the other way around. The most relevant empirical evidence for this is the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics which states that the mind is imperative for the wave-function collapse into material constructs.

I will be taking a break from this site for about a month or so. I wish you all the best of luck on your search for truth.

Ok lets see if i can get through to you. First what you are discussing is not the Copenhagen interpretation it doesnt require a mind at all. What it requires is an observer, however that could be anything that can interact with say a particle. It could be a camera it could be light it could be another particle. Its the act of observing that becomes important doesnt matter what does it.

What it sounds like is you believe in Quantum Bayesianism and to be more specific QBism. This says knowledge by the observer can effect odds and therfore things are not random. Monty Hall effect is I believe the name been a while since i read this but the gist is observers can indeed effect the outcome. Goes something like this lets say your on a game show and you have 3 doors to choose from. One is a brand new car the other 2 contain a goat. You choose door number 1 so our host knows which is the correct answer. So he opens door number 3 for you revealing a goat. He then asks you do you want to switch to door number 2. Now playing the odds that is exactly what you should do and here is why. If you stick to door number 1 your odds remain the same in other words 1 in 3. If you choose 2 based off your knowledge you just recieved your odds change. Choosing door number 2 your odds become 2 out of 3. So your probablities increase for you and in efect you can change the outcome by processing new information you didnt have at first.

reply to: cooperton

Apologies, i revise my first line. I ment:



Show us a mind existing outside of the brain or nervous system?

Mic.... Drop.

a reply to: cooperton

Sounds like a good idea.

the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics which states that the mind is imperative for the wave-function collapse into material constructs

You are wrong. The "observer" can be a human, a device, any type of instrument which can measure.

Quantum physics applies to individual objects. The probabilities computed by the Born rule do not require an ensemble or collection of "identically prepared" systems to understand.

The results provided by measuring devices are essentially classical, and should be described in ordinary language. This was particularly emphasized by Bohr, and was accepted by Heisenberg.

Per the above point, the device used to observe a system must be described in classical language, while the system under observation is treated in quantum terms. This is a particularly subtle issue for which Bohr and Heisenberg came to differing conclusions.

According to Heisenberg, the boundary between classical and quantum can be shifted in either direction at the observer's discretion. That is, the observer has the freedom to move what would become known as the "Heisenberg cut" without changing any physically meaningful predictions.[7]:86 On the other hand, Bohr argued that a complete specification of the laboratory apparatus would fix the "cut" in place. Moreover, Bohr argued that at least some concepts of classical physics must be meaningful on both sides of the "cut".

During an observation, the system must interact with a laboratory device. When that device makes a measurement, the wave function of the systems collapses, irreversibly reducing to an eigenstate of the observable that is registered. The result of this process is a tangible record of the event, made by a potentiality becoming an actuality.[note 4]
Statements about measurements that are not actually made do not have meaning. For example, there is no meaning to the statement that a photon traversed the upper path of a Mach–Zehnder interferometer unless the interferometer were actually built in such a way that the path taken by the photon is detected and registered.

Wave functions are objective, in that they do not depend upon personal opinions of individual physicists or other such arbitrary influences.[7]:509–51

Indeed, within philosophy of mind one cannot consistently maintain both psycho-physical parallelism and the existence of an interaction between the brain and the mind. So it is no wonder that Eugene Wigner (1967) followed up on the suggestion of the mind’s interaction by proposing that what causes a collapse of the wave function is the mind of the observer. But Wigner never explained how it was possible for something mental to produce a material effect like the collapse of a quantum system. The measuring problem led to the famous paradox of Schrödinger’s cat and later to the one of Wigner’s friend. Although von Neumann’s and Wigner’s positions are usually associated with the Copenhagen Interpretation, such views were definitely not Bohr’s as we shall see in a moment.

You might want to spend some time reading this:

Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
First published Fri May 3, 2002; substantive revision Fri Dec 6, 2019

plato.stanford.edu...

a reply to: dragonridr

It's really about money. If they can declare themselves a "religion", there are multiple benefits from the government and the public. Kent Hovind, a buddy of Cooperton, found himself in prison for tax fraud. Ken Ham has been sucking his followers dry using the virus as an excuse. The misinterpretation of science intentionally puts them in the "cult" category, which suits their followers just fine.

Read this:

Ark Encounter’s Parent Company Received More Than $1 Million in PPP Loans

Crosswater Canyon, the parent company for Ark Encounter, received between$1 million and $2 million from the Paycheck Protection Program.

friendlyatheist.patheos.com...

The Ark’s False Profit
Ken Ham admits his promises to community never held water

A con artist depends on one critical tool: trust. As long as he can keep his victims depending on him and trusting that he’s got their best interests in mind, he can keep fleecing them. Typically, the con artist will go to tremendous lengths to maintain the relationship, carefully heading off doubts and demurring suspicions. When the con man finally stops cultivating the dependence of his victims, it means one of two things: either he’s been caught, or he’s already taken them for all they’re worth.
...........
As a science advocate, I take strong issue with the pseudoscience, nonscience, and anti-science fraudulently peddled to families and students by con artists like Ken Ham. Their parody of the scientific method does real harm, bleeding inexorably into education and public policy. The whole-hearted embrace of “alternative facts” and the rejection of plain evidence are making our society more and more polarized. Yet Ken Ham’s treatment of Williamstown is a reminder that these sorts of cult-like organizations have impacts that go much farther than the foolish ideas they promote.

medium.com...

originally posted by: dragonridr

What it sounds like is you believe in Quantum Bayesianism and to be more specific QBism. This says knowledge by the observer can effect odds and therfore things are not random. Monty Hall effect is I believe the name been a while since i read this but the gist is observers can indeed effect the outcome. Goes something like this lets say your on a game show and you have 3 doors to choose from. One is a brand new car the other 2 contain a goat. You choose door number 1 so our host knows which is the correct answer. So he opens door number 3 for you revealing a goat. He then asks you do you want to switch to door number 2. Now playing the odds that is exactly what you should do and here is why. If you stick to door number 1 your odds remain the same in other words 1 in 3. If you choose 2 based off your knowledge you just recieved your odds change. Choosing door number 2 your odds become 2 out of 3. So your probablities increase for you and in efect you can change the outcome by processing new information you didnt have at first.

I have never liked the 'accepted' answer of the Monty Hall problem.

After door number 3 is opened, there are two doors left. 1 has a goat, the other has a car.

You are then given a chance to pick between those two doors - you are free to choose either door number 1 OR door number 2 - the one time existence of the 3rd door is totally irrelevant. You don't have any more knowledge than you had before: you have an entirely new problem: door number 1 or door number 2 - and a 50% chance of getting it right.

'Staying' with door number 1 is just another way of saying 'pick number 1' in the NEW 2 door problem.

I know the accepted "wisdom" says otherwise, but the accepted "wisdom" is WRONG in this case. (IMHO).

a reply to: rnaa

Your talking about odds of wining not probabilities. Your odds of winning goes to 50 percent as its either behind door one or two.Odds refers to the chances in favor of the event to the chances against it. However probailities does not change. They are always based on the number of original choices because probability refers to the likelihood of occurrence of an event. Probailities are between zero and 1.00 . If the odds are high (million to one), the probability is almost 1.00. If the odds are tiny (one to a million), the probablility is tiny, almost zero.

originally posted by: rnaa

originally posted by: dragonridr

What it sounds like is you believe in Quantum Bayesianism and to be more specific QBism. This says knowledge by the observer can effect odds and therfore things are not random. Monty Hall effect is I believe the name been a while since i read this but the gist is observers can indeed effect the outcome. Goes something like this lets say your on a game show and you have 3 doors to choose from. One is a brand new car the other 2 contain a goat. You choose door number 1 so our host knows which is the correct answer. So he opens door number 3 for you revealing a goat. He then asks you do you want to switch to door number 2. Now playing the odds that is exactly what you should do and here is why. If you stick to door number 1 your odds remain the same in other words 1 in 3. If you choose 2 based off your knowledge you just recieved your odds change. Choosing door number 2 your odds become 2 out of 3. So your probablities increase for you and in efect you can change the outcome by processing new information you didnt have at first.

I have never liked the 'accepted' answer of the Monty Hall problem.

After door number 3 is opened, there are two doors left. 1 has a goat, the other has a car.

You are then given a chance to pick between those two doors - you are free to choose either door number 1 OR door number 2 - the one time existence of the 3rd door is totally irrelevant. You don't have any more knowledge than you had before: you have an entirely new problem: door number 1 or door number 2 - and a 50% chance of getting it right.

'Staying' with door number 1 is just another way of saying 'pick number 1' in the NEW 2 door problem.

I know the accepted "wisdom" says otherwise, but the accepted "wisdom" is WRONG in this case. (IMHO).

What??

It doesn't matter if you accept or not, you're wrong.

This is basic common sene. If you reduce your chances to guess wrong then you increase your chances to get it right. In the Monty Hall problem, you start with a 33.3% chance to get it right. This is because you have 2 outcomes that are not the car and 1 outcome that is the car.

When you remove one of the doors, you increase your chances by a 3rd to get it right and reduce your chances of getting it wrong by a 3rd.

In the movie 21, the student was faced with this problem and at the end he said thank you for the extra 33.3%. He talks about variable change.



Again, you start with a car(33.3%), or 2 goats(66.7%) behind the closed doors. You pick door number 2 and the host reveals what's behind door number 3 which is a goat. He asks you do you want to change your pick. Of course you say yes because when you were first asked you had a 67% chance to get it wrong. When he shows you the door with the goat, your chances increase by 33% if you switch. So you take the extra 33.3%.

a reply to: neoholographic

When he shows you the door with the goat, your chances increase by 33% if you switch. So you take the extra 33.3%.

NO.

When he removes one incorrect door from the problem you have an ENTIRELY NEW PROBLEM.

You have 2 doors and there is a goat behind one door and a car behind the other door and you can choose either door.

It is NOT a 3 door problem anymore; it is a 2 door problem. The first 'phase' has NOTHING to do with the second 'phase' - the first 'phase' is just a MacGuffin.

You can choose door number one or you can choose door number two - there is no door number three. End of story.

You have a 50% chance of getting it right.

a reply to: rnaa

As i explained earlier you are confusing odds with probabilities. Proabailities looks at the entire event period. In fact this is why the mit blackjack team relied on probabilities to beat the casinos. They were not playing odds of winning a hand they were looking at probabilities of getting a specific card from the deck. And they set up betting to maximize on win loss. They were not concerned with odds at all since odds in blackjack go to the house. What they did is use probability to set bet limits meaning that when they lost it was a minimal bet. Casinos eventually caught on to their betting patterns which actually gets them banned. Just like the three doors i mentioned you can do this in cards as well. playing probabilities you shift the odds to your favor. So arguing its wrong is silly because casinos lost a crap load of money on probabilities.

a reply to: dragonridr

I disagree completely. YOU are misunderstanding probability and its application to THIS problem.

You say correctly that 'Proabailities looks at the entire event period.' But what is the 'entire event period'? The entire event period is the final choice you are offered: "choose door number 1 or choose door number 2".

Consider a coin toss. What is the probabilities of tossing 92 heads in a row? Pretty unlikely of course (odds 1 in 5 octillion), and yet Rosencrantz wins against the probabilities? But what is the probability of tossing a head on any one given toss? That is easy, of course, the odds are 50/50 and the probability is 50%?

By definition, the probability that an event will occur is the fraction of times you expect to see that event in many trials. We don't have 'many trials' in the Monty Hall problem, you are allowed only one chance to choose between two different doors. Period. Its ONE coin toss and you are either the owner of a new car or a goat.

In the Monty Hall problem you are NOT getting 500 chances - just one - to choose between two different outcomes. The odds that you will get it 'right' is 50% and the probability of each result is 50%. You either get it 'right' or you don't. You don't get 2/3 of a goat - you can either get a (whole) goat or a (whole) car - that is all there is.

You have two possible outcomes and complete freedom to choose either one; this is the ONLY thing that counts in the Monty Hall problem. The three door 'problem' is non-existent, it is a MacGuffin, something added to carry the story forward but serving no real purpose.

The only 'problem' that ever actually exists is the two door 'problem' and the odds are 50/50 that you'll get it right.

a reply to: rnaa

A coin toss is not 50/50.


www.smithsonianmag.com...

a reply to: rnaa

There are still 3 doors to choose and that is what probability looks at. If you replay the event several times like a game show for example you will always have 3 doors to choose and probability is based off of that.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: rnaa

There are still 3 doors to choose and that is what probability looks at. If you replay the event several times like a game show for example you will always have 3 doors to choose and probability is based off of that.

A contestant doesn't play several times. They play ONCE.

a reply to: rnaa

The “rub” in the Monty Hall problem is that the host knows which door has the car.

If you Pick door #2 as your first choice, then the host chooses his own second door to open. He doesn’t ask you to choose the second door, nor does he do it randomly, but he will always choose it himself— and that door will always have a goat.

If the host was picking the second door randomly and got a goat, then that really would be a 50-50 proposition as to which of the remaining doors had the car...
... but he doesn’t pick randomly; he will always pick a goat, and on purpose. Since the host is in on it, this intentional elimination of one of the goat doors means two things:

1. The 1/3 odds for the car behind any one door still applies, even if only two doors remain. Since the host didn’t pick randomly, the odds don’t change.

2. Your first choice remains a 1/3 chance of being the car since you chose it before learning anything else about the other doors. However, since the time you picked, we have gained more information. Namely, by the host opening the other goat door, potentially more value has been put on the door he did not chose. The door he did open will always be a goat which would eliminate a 1/3 chance the door he did NOT open (of the two that were left) will be a goat. So that would mean that 2/3 of the time, the door he not open will not be a goat — i.e., it will be a car.

So your best bet is to switch doors.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

He doesn’t ask you to choose the second door, nor does he do it randomly, but he will always choose it himself— and that door will always have a goat.

Of course.

Namely, by the host opening the other goat door, potentially more value has been put on the door he did not chose.

No. What has happened is the host has eliminated one door from the game, creating an ENTIRELY NEW problem: a TWO DOOR problem. There is now a ZERO chance that the car is behind the door that the host opened, and the contestant is now free to choose between the TWO DOORS that are left.

There is no 'best bet' - its either/or, heads or tails, evens or odds, pick one and look at the other. And be entertaining while you do it.

Look, I know and understand the 'accepted answer' - but that answer is wrong. The fundamental disconnect is that eliminating that door FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGES THE GAME. Everything that happens before the host asks the contestant to choose between the two doors is completely irrelevant - the choice has nothing to do with three doors and never did.

double post...see below.

[I quoted instead of edited ]