Timewave Zero - Countdown to Transition

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Wobbly Anomaly

 

Just one little question, do you want me not to misrepresent your first or second quotes.

Taking stuff out of context to misrepresent AGAIN!

Too too your claims are all failures.

I'm sorry if I dont understand the point you are trying to make. I'm not trying to misrepresent you, i'm trying to understand you. I dont know if you agree or disagree that humans have experienced an accelerating curve in our ability to travel faster, process information, produce power etc. and I dont know if you agree or disagree that the universe has become more locally complex is it has evolved.

I'd called it mores law, the law of accelerating experience. We experience more speed, more processing power, more scientific knowledge and so on but the percent increases we have experienced over, for say, the last million years, have been produced in less and less time.

The speed we are able to travel at due to our own technological advancements, I thought, would be a good example of this.

If, as you say, "Too too your claims are all failures" is correct, then i'd like to learn why they are so, so I can improve them.

reply to post by Wobbly Anomaly


The issue is that we are able to travel faster today that before. That travel is not exponential in nature. The travel rate is based on physical properties such as the ability of animal to move, either ourselves or other animals. Ships can be fast, but again are restricted to wind power or to fluid flow around the hull. Railroads were restricted in power to the thermodynamics of steam engines. The list goes on and on.

The graph of travel speed vs time shows a stepped plot that is neither continuous or smooth. It is restricted by properties that produce a rather flat step after a short rise.

Moore's Law is an exponential curve. Travel is not.

Moore's Law is not about anything over than transisters per cheap IC.

Exponential is not just increasing or accelerating. An object falling in a vacuum accelerates, but not exponentially. Lots of things accelerate, but few do exponentially.

Is the universe more "locally complex"? That's probably ot true.The universe is very big and the main processes of the universe are not very different today than a billion years ago. Stars are formed. Stars burn. Stars explode or die out. To look at the details of our solar system is to examine an example of 1. To make any meaningful inferences about the universe from that is hard to do. Consider even the Earth. Is it really that different from a billion years ago? Probably not in an overall sense. There was life. There is life. The atmosphere was already poisoned with oxygen. The same geological processes were at work. The same types of rocks existed. About the main difference is that the land was not populated with plants and animals. Life was pretty much restricted to the oceans. That life is a remarkably small portion of the Earth.

Sure there might be pockets here and there of greater complexity, but is the solar system really more complex? Probably not.

The actual travel speeds may not show exponential growth, but the rate at which travel inventions have occurred does. As wobbly pointed out, 100 years ago it would have taken months to get the other side of the world and you had a good chance of dying on the way. Now you can get there in less than a day and have a small chance of getting DVT if you don't stretch enough on the way. If you look at the time between riding animals -> invention of wheel -> invention of cart/chariot -> first boats -> first engines w/trains and boats -> cars -> planes -> space craft the time between each one is less and less at each step. You get to the point where in the last say 150 years alone we've progressed from animal/wind powered vehicles to gas/oil/electric engines and even rocket engines. That progress alone dwarfs the previous hundreds of thousands of years of human progression in that field.

We are constantly seeing developments on each of these technologies which don't increase the overall speed exponentially but still show an exponential rate of change in terms of number of developments/inventions over time.

I think its fair to say this shows an exponential pattern and the general concept of Moore's Law - exponential rates of progression - fits. Btw I heard recently that Moore's Law is no longer correct and that instead chip designers are choosing to make the infrastructure more efficient rather than just adding more "electron gates" (whatever the right term is sorry lol). Anyone know if this is true?

No the earth is not the same as billion of years ago. For starters we have a reasonable idea of what it was like back then through geological understanding and science, but once again these are all models subject to possible errors. Even based on this understanding the earth is different.

I agree that the same general processes occur i.e. Tectonic shifts, volcanic activity, weather and storms, water cycles etc etc. What is different is there is now a massive population of people that are terraforming the whole planet. This has never been seen before on this scale. Other species like ants certainly terraform but not on the same scale. Other creatures like Dinosaurs contributed to environmental changes but not deliberately. Now humans can deliberately change the environment on a large scale - that is novel.

Life itself is more complex now. Billions of years ago the extent of life was a. Non-existant or b. Single-celled organisms or c. Early subsets of single-celled organisms (not sure exact dates off the top of my head). Now we have not only more complex single-celled organisms but also multi-cellular ones that form complex societies and change. Almost every species has evolved and become more complex and adapted (or become extinct if it couldn't) over time.

In terms of the solar system being of the same overall complexity - yes you are probably right there. On such a small timescale as a billion years very few changes will happen to a solar system. Except of course when you consider the life it gives birth to.

Lets not forget that the human brain is the most complex structure currently known to man. Sure that doesn't mean it IS the most complex, but as far as we can tell at least within the known universe, we are it. Doesn't that strike you as significant?

Perhaps just as significant is that our technology, the things we have created (i.e. computer chips) are about to become more complex than our own brains. Imagine that - a species creating something even more complex than itself. That's evolution right there Or is it divinity?

I apologize if i am hijacking this thread, let me know if i should start a new one.


i have the java version Timewave Calculator, but am not sure how to use it properly. I work at a small Canadian public art gallery, and I'd like to look at resonances in relation to art history, specifically the works in our permanent collection, and significant global historical dates.

any help would be greatly appreciated.

email me at [email protected]

thanks to any responders.

t.

Originally posted by tmamer
I apologize if i am hijacking this thread, let me know if i should start a new one.

i have the java version Timewave Calculator, but am not sure how to use it properly. I work at a small Canadian public art gallery, and I'd like to look at resonances in relation to art history, specifically the works in our permanent collection, and significant global historical dates.

any help would be greatly appreciated.

email me at [email protected]

thanks to any responders.

t.

That sounds like an interesting project.Amongst otherthings it may show how our expression of reality tunnels has evolved and, speaking of which, I'd watch Robert Anton Wilson here www.youtube.com... as art and reality tunnels go hand in hand.

It would also be interesting to see if our art has shown any acceleration over the last 100,000 years to show, possibly, our ability to accurately describe the world through art eg how visually realistic an interpretation we have learned to produce. (Visually because it is more objective than say the meaning behind a work of art)

I'd also highly recommend structuring your table of works of art before you compare it to anybodies version of what they think the timewave is showing.

reply to post by Evasius







so if i understand this graph, something will happen (something global will happen) sometime towards the end of october?

i find this kinda cool, because there are other threads with similar predictions. october 28th is suppose to be an eventful day.

-subfab

Originally posted by Wobbly Anomaly

That sounds like an interesting project.Amongst otherthings it may show how our expression of reality tunnels has evolved and, speaking of which, I'd watch Robert Anton Wilson here www.youtube.com... as art and reality tunnels go hand in hand.

It would also be interesting to see if our art has shown any acceleration over the last 100,000 years to show, possibly, our ability to accurately describe the world through art eg how visually realistic an interpretation we have learned to produce. (Visually because it is more objective than say the meaning behind a work of art)

I'd also highly recommend structuring your table of works of art before you compare it to anybodies version of what they think the timewave is showing.

Interesting? maybe. our permanent collection is small and quite regional. i'm not sure how many people it would actually appeal to. I'm also worried i am bitting of more than i can chew

The idea of reality tunnels is interesting. I'll give Wilson a go,

thanks for responding!

t

reply to post by Cecilofs


The problem with this claim is that there is no evidence that it is exponential. It isn't. Just because the time is reduced does not mean that it is exponential.

The actual travel speeds may not show exponential growth, but the rate at which travel inventions have occurred does.

You get to the point where in the last say 150 years alone we've progressed from animal/wind powered vehicles to gas/oil/electric engines and even rocket engines. That progress alone dwarfs the previous hundreds of thousands of years of human progression in that field.

Here we have a delta claim. By that I mean you are looking at the change in time between events. This is like a first derivative.

We are constantly seeing developments on each of these technologies which don't increase the overall speed exponentially but still show an exponential rate of change in terms of number of developments/inventions over time.

Again you are using the term exponential when you have not shown in any way that it is. You simply say it takes less time between events. That in no way means or even suggests an exponential change.

What is different is there is now a massive population of people that are terraforming the whole planet. This has never been seen before on this scale.

That is not true. One of the most destructive events was the pollution of the atmosphere with oxygen. When this body waste was dumped in the air it ended up killing off most of the anaerobic life forms. So when people change the Earth now it is not novel.

A billion years ago there were multicellular creatures.
articles.latimes.com...

... finding fossils that stretched as long as 4.75 inches ...

Almost every species has evolved and become more complex and adapted (or become extinct if it couldn't) over time. /quote]

... a species creating something even more complex than itself. That's evolution right there

Don't forget that evolution does not lead to complexity. Evolution is based on survival and adaptability and not complexity.

Originally posted by stereologistThe problem with this claim is that there is no evidence that it is exponential. It isn't. Just because the time is reduced does not mean that it is exponential.

Ok then perhaps not strictly exponential but the rate of change is increasing.

That is not true. One of the most destructive events was the pollution of the atmosphere with oxygen. When this body waste was dumped in the air it ended up killing off most of the anaerobic life forms. So when people change the Earth now it is not novel.

Which is why its novel when humans do it because we are doing it deliberately. The planet has had changing conditions before. Animals have terraformed before. Nothing has deliberately and consciously terraformed before. Hmmm perhaps some animals like beavers building dams, but then not on a scale as large as humans.

Don't forget that evolution does not lead to complexity. Evolution is based on survival and adaptability and not complexity.

Survival and adaptaion are the "goal" of evolution and based on selection pressures. But the outcome of evolution is generally higher complexity. At least it is when taking a wide view over time. In the short term it could lead to reduced complexity as processes become more efficient, but over a longer time frame it will lead to greater complexity.

Originally posted by stereologist
The problem with this claim is that there is no evidence that it is exponential. It isn't. Just because the time is reduced does not mean that it is exponential.

You are probably right about the use of the word "exponential" as a strictly mathematical function, even Moores law doesnt follow it exactly, it makes jumps. I suppose its like the quantum aspect of nature where you have to look at results over a long period of time to get an accurate graph.

I did a quick x,y graph (date against speed of transport) and the acceleration is only strictly exponential, on average, over a small section of that graph. Maybe interesting to overlay a few graphs of different growth/acceleration rates, see what patterns- or waves- materialise.

Originally posted by Cecilofs


Survival and adaptaion are the "goal" of evolution and based on selection pressures. But the outcome of evolution is generally higher complexity. At least it is when taking a wide view over time. In the short term it could lead to reduced complexity as processes become more efficient, but over a longer time frame it will lead to greater complexity.

I imagine it to be similar to the classic formulas for fractal generation (if you can apply a formula to evolution) where the evolved form is a product of the previous forms, a feedback loop + time/environment. Its going to try and get as complex as it can, within its confines.

reply to post by Cecilofs

Which is why its novel when humans do it because we are doing it deliberately. The planet has had changing conditions before. Animals have terraformed before. Nothing has deliberately and consciously terraformed before. Hmmm perhaps some animals like beavers building dams, but then not on a scale as large as humans.

Animals stake out territory. Plants also "stake out" territory by releasing chemicals that keep other plants from encroaching. The scale done by humans is only larger in the sense that it can in some ways be considered somehow purposeful.

Survival and adaptaion are the "goal" of evolution and based on selection pressures. But the outcome of evolution is generally higher complexity. At least it is when taking a wide view over time. In the short term it could lead to reduced complexity as processes become more efficient, but over a longer time frame it will lead to greater complexity.

No. Over time there is nothing leading to greater complexity. That is a misunderstanding often pushed by proponents of ID.

reply to post by Wobbly Anomaly


Moore's Law is a discrete plot. That means that there are data points and not a continuous measurement. Such data always has some uncertainty or noise to it. A curve fitted to the data shows that the data is exponential in nature.

Can you show us the data you used for the time vs speed of transport graph? When you say that it is "only strictly exponential, on average, over a small section of that graph" that probably means that the data is not exponential.

reply to post by Wobbly Anomaly

I imagine it to be similar to the classic formulas for fractal generation (if you can apply a formula to evolution) where the evolved form is a product of the previous forms, a feedback loop + time/environment. Its going to try and get as complex as it can, within its confines.

Evolution is not fractal. One of the hallmarks of mistakes is applying the wrong math to a given situation.

reply to post by stereologist
I must say,
You are persistent..

Originally posted by stereologistNo. Over time there is nothing leading to greater complexity. That is a misunderstanding often pushed by proponents of ID.

Seriously? You are seriously claiming that?

Ok then, so are you claiming that single celled organisms didn't arise by combining different organelles (like Mitochondria) into one structure (the cell)?

Are you claiming that single-celled organisms didn't evolve into multi-cellular ones?

Are you claiming that respiratory structures haven't increased in complexity over time? What about reproductive systems? Note I am talking about individual species over time - I realise that there are examples around still of less complex systems in different organisms.

Are you saying humans are no more complex than single-celled organisms?

Seriously, if we agree that evolution is an accurate model (debatable) and we can see that the complexity of organisms over time has increased....I am actually intrigued to see how you are gonna back this one up lol.

Persistent is one word for it. Also likes bogging the debate down in semantics.

Edit: Perhaps you are just claiming that there is no "guiding force" which pushes things to become more complex. Again debatable but you may have a case if that's your claim. To claim that evolution doesn't result in greater complexity wether guided or not is just flat out wrong.

I'd like to see some evidence of "devolution" - i.e. a species that become less complex over time due to evolution.

reply to post by Cecilofs


You make a lot of repetitive statements such as the following:

Are you claiming that single-celled organisms didn't evolve into multi-cellular ones?

This is a straw man argument.

The issue is that you are misunderstanding what happens with evolution. There is no goal of increased complexity. There is no tendency towards increased complexity. Survival is the issue. Any increases in complexity are due to survival.

Seriously, if we agree that evolution is an accurate model (debatable)

Evolution is not debatable. It is a fact. The debatable issue is the theory as to why and how evolution occurs.

Persistent is one word for it. Also likes bogging the debate down in semantics.

This is not a semantics issue. Rather it is a discussion of change. The cause of the change leads to observations such as more complex forms of life. That observation is being confused with being a goal or tendency.

Perhaps you are just claiming that there is no "guiding force" which pushes things to become more complex. Again debatable but you may have a case if that's your claim. To claim that evolution doesn't result in greater complexity wether guided or not is just flat out wrong.

You got this half right. There is no guiding force. Evolution is driven by survival. Part of that is adaptability.

I'd like to see some evidence of "devolution" - i.e. a species that become less complex over time due to evolution.

There is no devolution. There is only evolution.

I suggest you take a look at viruses.

After I suggested viruses I bumped into this:
Evolution of biological complexity
Maybe this explains it better than I do.

Originally posted by stereologist
After I suggested viruses I bumped into this:
Evolution of biological complexity
Maybe this explains it better than I do.

Good link and I dont think there is any disagreement that some things can evolve to become less complex. Nothing is really perfectly smooth, but on the whole things have evolved to be more complex. This quote from your link explains it better than I have done.

Wikipedia
More generally, the growth of complexity may be driven by the co-evolution between an organism and the ecosystem of predators, prey and parasites to which it tries to stay adapted: as any of these become more complex in order to cope better with the diversity of threats offered by the ecosystem formed by the others, the others too will have to adapt by becoming more complex, thus triggering an on-going evolutionary arms race[7] towards more complexity.[9] This trend may be reinforced by the fact that ecosystems themselves tend to become more complex over time, as species diversity increases, together with the linkages or dependencies between species.

Just looking for a timeline of evolution, hopefully it will also show the less complex branches too, but still expect to see an increase in complexity and possibly an acceleration in complexity ( for some branches of life, not all)

reply to post by Wobbly Anomaly

Just looking for a timeline of evolution, hopefully it will also show the less complex branches too, but still expect to see an increase in complexity and possibly an acceleration in complexity ( for some branches of life, not all)

There is a concept called the molecular clock.
Molecular Clock

Early on the idea was that the clock was linear. That means that the same number of changes happen over equal time periods. That does not mean that the effects of those changes might be considered equal. The reason you assume a linear change is that linear math has many useful properties.

No one expects exponential rates of change.