Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Cyberchat > Non-Actuarial Topics
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions



Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old 06-15-2018, 06:13 PM
Sredni Vashtar's Avatar
Sredni Vashtar Sredni Vashtar is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Favorite beer: pilseners
Posts: 6,758
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snakeroberts View Post
Natural selection says it picks traits based on the external environment, in particular survival. Internal DNA reasons "endogenous" laws are possible for why coexistent traits get picked. But that is not what Natural selection says. I am saying the theory is incomplete but does exists.
I mean, "picks traits based on external environment" is the very simple high level version. Like saying, "Microsoft develops operating systems based on what users want." It's accurate. It just doesn't go into the details.

We know more details than that, but we don't know all the details. I don't expect the details will be as weird as quantum mechanics. Basically nothing is as weird as modern physics.

Quote:
That is not the same as my thoughts on big bang where I say any set of laws would need to explain themselves ad infinitum. Laws need to be explained in terms of contents, the contents are explained in terms of laws and you get a circular chain. there can never be an ultimate law other than an unbounded one and a recursive selection process, otherwise you believe in magic.
Sorry, I meant the specific big bang and the specific issue of time. Not the turtles problem. Yes I agree there's a turtle's problem.
__________________
Sredni Vashtar went forth,
His thoughts were red thoughts and his teeth were white.
His enemies called for peace, but he brought them death.
Sredni Vashtar the Beautiful.

Last edited by Sredni Vashtar; 06-16-2018 at 12:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06-15-2018, 06:45 PM
Polevault1's Avatar
Polevault1 Polevault1 is online now
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 3,098
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeepPurple View Post
...Like rand() in Excel?


I recall more distinction between NS and PE. NS originally implied a relentlessly slow and yet steady pace. PE, on the other hand, had short bursts of adaptations and changes and long periods of status quo.
You are mixing terms. That is the distinction between punctuated equilibrium and gradualism. Both are driven by natural selection.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 06-15-2018, 06:48 PM
Polevault1's Avatar
Polevault1 Polevault1 is online now
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 3,098
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tempodust123 View Post
thus providing the organism with a somewhat self guided (nonrandom) tool to address changes in environments?
.
Natural selection is nonrandom.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 06-15-2018, 06:54 PM
Polevault1's Avatar
Polevault1 Polevault1 is online now
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 3,098
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snakeroberts View Post
good discussion but there is a problem. natural selection says its fitness. Thats fine and explains alot but there are free rider traits that cannot be explained other than to say "random" in others magical or more magical than quantum mechanics (at least there are laws in that).

this is the coextensive traits problem introduced by Jerry Fodor.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_linkage
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_hitchhiking
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 06-15-2018, 06:59 PM
The_Polymath's Avatar
The_Polymath The_Polymath is offline
Member
CAS SOA
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 751
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGillotine View Post
Mutations drive inheritable variations. There's some stuff about epigenetics as well which refers to inheritable characteristics related to how the gene expresses itself rather than changes to the gene itself.
Epigenetics is far more important for a given population viewed in the context of the next generation. Changes over millenia won't exactly affect us...we will be dead.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 06-15-2018, 07:00 PM
The_Polymath's Avatar
The_Polymath The_Polymath is offline
Member
CAS SOA
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 751
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polevault1 View Post
Natural selection is nonrandom.
True.

And there is no truly random process in nature in any event. Even chaotic systems have a small underlying order to them that can be quantified.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 06-15-2018, 07:05 PM
Polevault1's Avatar
Polevault1 Polevault1 is online now
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 3,098
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snakeroberts View Post
I will respond to you since the other guy is clearly a troll, a douche bag, an overly sensitive ninny, or an online intellectual wannabe staking out his turf take your pick, not to mention he threw a fit when I said go back to bible study. Natural selection says it picks traits based on the external environment, in particular survival. Internal DNA reasons "endogenous" laws are possible for why coexistent traits get picked. But that is not what Natural selection says. I am saying the theory is incomplete but does exists.

That is not the same as my thoughts on big bang where I say any set of laws would need to explain themselves ad infinitum. Laws need to be explained in terms of contents, the contents are explained in terms of laws and you get a circular chain. there can never be an ultimate law other than an unbounded one and a recursive selection process, otherwise you believe in magic.
Natural selection says that traits that have a material impact on fitness tend to increase in proportion with each successive generation. It does not preclude other traits from also changing in proportion. As you alluded to, a lot of traits are indirectly selected for because they tend to travel with each other during crossing over and are not very susceptible to recombination.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 06-15-2018, 07:06 PM
Polevault1's Avatar
Polevault1 Polevault1 is online now
Member
SOA
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 3,098
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Polymath View Post
True.

And there is no truly random process in nature in any event. Even chaotic systems have a small underlying order to them that can be quantified.
Most of the common interpretations of QM describe random events.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 06-15-2018, 07:09 PM
The_Polymath's Avatar
The_Polymath The_Polymath is offline
Member
CAS SOA
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 751
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DeepPurple View Post
...Like rand() in Excel?


I recall more distinction between NS and PE. NS originally implied a relentlessly slow and yet steady pace. PE, on the other hand, had short bursts of adaptations and changes and long periods of status quo.
Rand () is a poor RNG in any event.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 06-15-2018, 07:21 PM
The_Polymath's Avatar
The_Polymath The_Polymath is offline
Member
CAS SOA
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 751
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polevault1 View Post
Most of the common interpretations of QM describe random events.
This is not strictly correct.

There is nothing random about the motion of electrons or any other subatomic particles until you are trying to observe it. Their behavior is completely determined by the Schrodinger equation. The Schrodinger equation gives the time evolution of a wave associated with the system.

This wave is interpreted as the distribution of probability amplitude and according to this theory if you take a large ensemble of identical systems, then the results of some particular experiment may differ from system to system, but their relative abundance will be completely governed by the Schrodinger equation.

So if you take one system and ask "where would I find this particular particle?" quantum mechanics cannot give you a perfect answer, but will say "there is a large probability that you will find it at x=something". Your experiment may or may not give this answer, but that does not mean it is random. Because had you done the experiment repeatedly (but each experiment must be done after sufficient time gap from the former, better still they should be performed in a different identical system), you will find that quantum mechanics will give you almost exact data about the relative probability of finding the particle at some state or the other.

Last edited by The_Polymath; 06-15-2018 at 07:40 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.24109 seconds with 9 queries