....AN OPEN LETTER TO THE IGNORANT MASSES !!!!!

I've Been Patient, I've tried to be reasonable.
But it's time to speak clearly and plainly.
I dare anyone to respond, to attempt to show
the following statements are wrong.

But be warned, they are not wrong, and I will
embarrass you if your responses are lazy
and ignorant.


In another thread I wrote.


SPS has officially crossed the first big hurdle in
it's inevitable comeback.


And someone responded, doesn't matter who, this
is aimed at everyone within earshot.


"economic viability" apparently isn't one of the "tests of potential
success".



What is important is that people believe it can succeed.

If 'you' knew a whit about reality, science or nature, you would
already know this. Obviously, you haven't progressed
beyond the simple blackboard versions of each.
Which is to say not even an entry level of understanding of
how reality works.

Natural processes are responsible for the creation of the
most spectacular 'solutions' or creations known to exist.
Life and intelligence.

If we apply the processes responsible for our own creation
to this problem, our energy future, we will be applying
the greatest problem solving process in the
....known universe.

We will be applying the processes of Darwinian
evolution to this particular problem.

If you think you can do better, you define arrogance
and ignorance.

I'm sure that you believe in Darwin, after all, most
that don't are pegged as kooks, religious nuts
or worse.

So, do you believe in Darwin?

I am simply claiming we can apply the processes of Darwinian
evolution to this, and any, given problem. Therefore producing
a problem solving technique that rivals nature.

A problem solving technique that defines
.....the best this universe... can provide.

But I'm certain you will reject and ridicule this possibility.

And even worse, you will do so without even understanding
the very first thing about this idea. To dismiss and ridicule
what you know absolutely nothing about defines...again
.....arrogance and ignorance. Which is a typical and
common response.

So, are you typical, common, arrogant and ignorant?

Or will you even attempt to get the gist of this idea?

I cannot explain it in ten words or less. I cannot
convey it to the close-minded that believe science
has already discovered ...all.. that it ever will.

Are you that type? If so, please don't pretend
you have any knowledge, love or appreciation
for science. And don't bother responding.

Let me know, if you wish to have an intelligent
discussion, and are open to new ideas.

Then I can explain why that quesion is entirely
irrelevant to a solution to this problem. And how
to use Darwin for generic problem solving.


HINT: It is not possible to know in advance the
final product of an evolutionary system.
The best solution must be allowed to emerge
as it will from evolutionary processes.


Unless, of course, you believe 'God' or ..fairies decided in
advance our every single human characteristic
and nuance.

Are you that type?

Do you believe in rational thought, or not?
Do you believe in Darwin or not?

Do you believe we are intelligent enough to apply
the lessons of Nature to our problem solving?

Or do you believe humanity is little more than
well-behaved animals.

Let me know, because /I know/ that if we apply the lessons
of Nature in a rigourous and scienific way, we can
.....CHANGE THE WORLD.

And make the world a far better place.

I believe this, and all I want is that as many
others believe this also. So that humanity
can at last exit the Dark Ages.

And finally find our way to Utopia.

It's there for the taking, I know this for a fact.


Jonathan

http://necsi.org/publications/dcs/index.html
http://www.calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm
http://www.calresco.org/themes.htm
http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/



s

On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 01:56:53 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


I've Been Patient, I've tried to be reasonable.

presumably typical hysterical nonsense by jonathan snipped

I didn't bother to read this, since it obviously wasn't aimed at me,
judging from the title...

But how do you propose to get the actual ignorant masses to read your
wacky epistles?

jonathan wrote:
I've Been Patient, I've tried to be reasonable.

No you haven't, you have a track history of
butting in on any conversation and trying
to change it to your agenda regardless of
the topic - a classic 'mission poster'.

But it's time to speak clearly and plainly.
I dare anyone to respond, to attempt to show
the following statements are wrong.

But be warned, they are not wrong, and I will
embarrass you if your responses are lazy
and ignorant.


In another thread I wrote.


SPS has officially crossed the first big hurdle in
it's inevitable comeback.

Presumably "SPS" is something like
solar power satellite?

I am simply claiming we can apply the processes of Darwinian
evolution to this, and any, given problem. Therefore producing
a problem solving technique that rivals nature.

A problem solving technique that defines
.....the best this universe... can provide.

But I'm certain you will reject and ridicule this possibility.

Good guess, Darwinian evolution has a number
of basic requirements, the first of which is the
ability to reproduce. Satellites don't do that, nor
do we yet have the technology to give them that
ability, nor do we have the millions of years it
takes for evolutionary process to work in the real
world.

One current method for design optimisation uses
the evolutionary technique within the context of a
simulation where certain parameters are allowed
to vary and the best combinations propagated with
random variations to succeeeding generations. In
that environment, generations can be analysed
in a fraction of real time.

You're not the first to come up with this idea
and it was put into practice in areas where it
is appropriate years ago.

George

"George Dishman" wrote in message
ps.com...
|
| jonathan wrote:
| I've Been Patient, I've tried to be reasonable.
|
| No you haven't,
[snip river of ****]

****in' argumentative ****headed moron.

On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 12:35:40 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

But how do you propose to get the actual ignorant masses to read your
wacky epistles?

....Especially when his willingly-childmolested ass is in pretty much
everyone's Killfile Hell that has a clue. Save, alas, you.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

George Dishman wrote:

Good guess, Darwinian evolution has a number
of basic requirements, the first of which is the
ability to reproduce. Satellites don't do that, nor
do we yet have the technology to give them that
ability, nor do we have the millions of years it
takes for evolutionary process to work in the real
world.



If they are going to reproduce they are going to need added mass to
produce their young, where that mass will come from is a good question;
are they to consume other satellites like predators?

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


George Dishman wrote:

Good guess, Darwinian evolution has a number
of basic requirements, the first of which is the
ability to reproduce. Satellites don't do that, nor
do we yet have the technology to give them that
ability, nor do we have the millions of years it
takes for evolutionary process to work in the real
world.

If they are going to reproduce they are going to need added mass to
produce their young, where that mass will come from is a good question;
are they to consume other satellites like predators?

Clearly, after all I'm sure Jonathon would confirm
that being a predator is more sustainable than
cannibalism so that would be how they would evolve.

George

OM wrote:

...Especially when his willingly-childmolested ass is in pretty much
everyone's Killfile Hell that has a clue. Save, alas, you.



Does "Jonathan" remind you of someone else, BTW? Remember that whacky
Chinese guy "Spinoza"?
The one who would make some oddball philosophical statement then back it
up with four-letter words?
Early on, Jonathan stated that what he was saying wasn't necessarily
what he really believed in, but just wanted to screw with our brains.

Pat

George Dishman wrote:

Clearly, after all I'm sure Jonathon would confirm
that being a predator is more sustainable than
cannibalism so that would be how they would evolve.




I think you end up with this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Changeling.jpg :-)

Pat

"George Dishman" wrote in message
ps.com...

jonathan wrote:
I've Been Patient, I've tried to be reasonable.

No you haven't, you have a track history of
butting in on any conversation and trying
to change it to your agenda regardless of
the topic - a classic 'mission poster'.


Fine, what has that to do with the idea?




A problem solving technique that defines
.....the best this universe... can provide.

But I'm certain you will reject and ridicule this possibility.

Good guess, Darwinian evolution has a number
of basic requirements, the first of which is the
ability to reproduce. Satellites don't do that, nor
do we yet have the technology to give them that
ability, nor do we have the millions of years it
takes for evolutionary process to work in the real
world.

But my hobby is the abstract mathematics of Darwinian
evolution. Abstract means universally applicable.
This is my claim, that this mathematics has
achieved this ability. To be applied to any complex
dynamic system....living or not.



One current method for design optimisation uses
the evolutionary technique within the context of a
simulation where certain parameters are allowed
to vary and the best combinations propagated with
random variations to succeeeding generations. In
that environment, generations can be analysed
in a fraction of real time.

You're not the first to come up with this idea
and it was put into practice in areas where it
is appropriate years ago.

Years ago, things have changed. Your understanding
is dated. It is now appropriate with any real world
problem. It is now appropriate in any discipline
from sociology, to particle physics to philosophy.

If you don't believe me, click the links yourself

What I'm trying to do is boil these ideas down
to the most abstract and generic possible.
To ease the transistion from one discipline
to another.



http://necsi.org/publications/dcs/index.html
http://icam.lanl.gov/
http://www.calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm
http://www.psych.lse.ac.uk/complexity/
http://www.calresco.org/themes.htm
http://www.comdig.org/index.php?id_issue=2003.32#12323
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0521...50#reader-link
http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/


s











George