Mastone wrote...
I think it is a bit sad that people still try to logically explain any of the endings and headcanon their way around the simple fact that it doesn't make sense whatsoever.
Modifié par Seival, 06 avril 2013 - 05:27 .
Okay here we go.Seival wrote...
jacob taylor416 wrote...
If I misquoted you, than I'm sorry, I have a lot on my mind.Seival wrote...
jacob taylor416 wrote...
Seival wrote...
We just have different views of evolution limits. You think that evolution is limitless because you can't see its limits from where you stand. But I think that evolution is limited, because I have a lot of examples of limited things - even something endless like looped paths have limits.
You even sated it yourself or you agreed with someone who said it, (*example not actual post*) that a living being that breathes oxygen and cyanide is completely poisonous to it, and you place him on a planet that has cyanide as a fundamental part of its atmosphere than he/she needs to adapt to cyanide, whether it is nature or synthetics that is evolution. And whether it's synthetics or natural their lungs will disappear (much like our appendix) because it is a waste of energy and resources. In terms of an energy source, it is impossible to reach 100%(see last paragraph excluding the edit) but does that mean we, or nature, will stop at 90%, NO! In no area of history have there ever been examples of that. Evolution is not a progress to a simple point, rather a forever changing system trying to achive an equalibrium with its everchanging environment (the universe).
Going back to the person on the cyanide planet, if you tera-form it and restrain a species from evolving that is not the final form of evolution you're simply trying to kill a puppy because you think that it is cutest as a puppy. If you truly believe that there is a perfect form of life, a "final stage of evolution" than I am both sympathetic and envious of your innocence and ignorance. Also may I read your examples.
I am fairly sure that you would argue that it is possible for a 100% efficiency, than here is a paragraph dedicated to disproving that (don't you feel special paragraph). For every conversion of energy there is a dispersion of heat and entropy, stated by the first two laws of thermal dynamics, a perpetual motion machine is impossible for this same reason. Every system releases heat or, unusable energy, in the form of entropy, stated in the first law of thermal dynamics. A system will always require energy in order to change it into a usable form of energy, shown in this equation G=H-TS where the amount of usable energy (G) is the amount of total energy (H) minus the temperature give off in Kelvin (T) times the amount of entropy given off (S), therefore the only completely efficient system is at 0 degrees Kelvin, which not only does not exist in nature but at which point nothing happens and nothing can. With that said, the second law of thermal dynamics states that a system not already at a thermal equilibrium (death) spontaneously evolves toward it, and therefore it will naturally try to achieve 100% efficiency even though it is only possible at nonexistence. What you call the "final state of evolution" is the thermodynamic equilibrium which only exists at nonexistence.
I don't even remember such argument. And this is not the first time you tell that I said something I didn't actually say.
About the example. It is out of place. Completely. You are trying to compare final evolution to reaching 100% efficiency. Adapting to everything doesn't mean achieving high efficiency. You can be ready to everything even at 10% efficiency. You will "produce a lot of heat while resisting", but you will still overcome an obstacle. Evolution is mostly about developing internal and external readiness. High efficiency is not important nor it's possible.
There are different ways to adapt to agressive environments. An organic being's physical limits allow limited adaptation to such environments through the body improvements. And Synthesis improves the physical limits themselves. But limits will always remain limits. Synthesis will make organic beings perfect and allow them to survive much more things without any outer shell, but will not allow them to survive vacuum for example. To survive vacuum or some other dangerous environment (that even synthetics may not survive), organics have to use devices like environmental suits.
That doesn't change the statement that synthesized creature is ready for any possible obstacles both internally and externally, while regular creature is not. Forever changing system is limited as any looped path. It goes through cycles, and repeat itself.
Although efficiency has everything to do with evolution, it doesn't matter if you can do something but if someone else can do it better than they survive, you die out, that's evolution, survival of the fittest. Therefore in order to be the "final point of evolution" you must be the most efficient possible, but reaching 100% is impossible (again I find myself having to go over this). Taking the experiments of the father of the theory of evolution itself, Darwin's finches, a main land finch could find the correct food source with its current beak, ye it still adapted in order to find and eat it more efficiently. Same with our evolution from apes, we were perfectly fine swinging with trees, and when the trees started to diminish in Africa, the first monkeys to adapt (Nakalipithecus) could walk on land just and find food just fine, yet they still evolved to (****** Habilis) who use tools. Are tools necessary? no just more efficient.
And if so that a synthesized creature could overcome any obstacle, they still aren't the most efficient, someone or something could do it better, and therefore they're more fit, and wha-la evolution occurs. Also you just contradicted yourself, you stated that it would make organics perfect but then stated that they can't survive in a vacuum and therefore not perfect, also synthetics can survive a vacuum.
Also the limits of an organism are not finite, if they were finite, we all would still be fish living in the ocean. They are only finite at a given point in time; a baby cannot lift 300 pounds, it simple can't, but it can, later in life when it's limits expand.
Evolution has nothing to do with efficiency. Some real life examples:
(1) My own immunity system is not efficient. I become ill very often since my childhood. Over time I used to suffer from all those diseases very often, and my body became always ready for one more disease that I will soon have. In my childhood it was terrible, and everyone told me that I have to improve my immune system. But now I see that not efficient immune system actually has advantages. I know people with very efficient immune system who didn't become ill for many years and were very proud of that. And I knew what happens when those people eventually become ill (immunity is not a 100% defense). They withstand disease very poorly, and have very high risk to gain some dangerous complications. They may die from something that I used to overcome in just few days without even need to stay home to cure myself. I with my not efficient immune system withstand diseases better than people with strong immune system. Why? Because I'm always ready and got used to be ill.
(2) There is a cross-road with very intense traffic. Crushes are quite often here obviously. You can try to improve the cross-road safety measures' efficiency as long as you want. You will reduce the crushes rate, but will never stop crushes from happening. What is the right decision here? The right decision is to forget about cross-road safety's efficiency. Remove the cross-road, dig a tunnel, and build an overpass. There will be no physical possibilities of crushes because of crossed traffic flows. Problem solved. And there is no need in increasing safety efficiency.
There are more examples like human body's "disadvantages" were actually advantages that made us the apex race of this planet. No, evolution is not about efficiency. It's about readiness. And evolution has limits like everything in the universe and the universe itself.
Modifié par jacob taylor416, 06 avril 2013 - 05:35 .
Wayning_Star wrote...
SkullStrife wrote...
wrong, evolution is not lineal, nor is history... there is not a lineal path for every civilization... The Roman Empire developed science and then Europe had centuries of dark age...repression of sciene, crusades, feudal system,... totally different to the slavery in Rome.. yer probably renaissance would have happened if not for the dark age...
America was developing in a different way with different kinds of religion until the europeans came and slaughtered all the civilizations there
History could be different, technology,knowledge could have been developed differently, culture too... Antropology has already studied that and came to this conclusion....
if in ME3 it was more lineal , it was because the reapers were there creating paths for all of the races and providing their technology... as Legion said in ME2 (he was much better written in ME2 than ME3...) they were fighting for the right of creating their own future (that´s why he agrees with my Shepard when I destroyed the collector base... then suddenly in ME3 he takes the reaper code...) .... there is no such thing as "final evolution of life" there are many paths and many possible destinations for evolution... that´s one more of the many reasons why the catalyst is WRONG... accepting that there is only ONE evolution of life is accepting the colonization, the vision of the conquerors over the conquered, domination... that´s why control is wrong and so is synthesis
Many seem to think that technology is directly related to organic/human evolution. It's not. Tech is merely a by product of the learning curve, as if 'evolution' IS that learning curve. It's not.
The OP seems to infer that both are the same in the way the MEU is fashioned BY technology, as if the mergence of both is an APEX of evolution. The story infers that, but only in respect to how both intertwine, not actually "merge", that is the byproduct of intellect and it's wear on the nature of evolution. Two different Catalysts...pun intended.
The idea of any 'ultimate' evolutionary progression, is a 'question' posed as an answer to the riddle of the MEU and it's technological apex. Mixing of synthetic intellect with organic intellect. No sure fire answer, but an interesting conundrum. Maybe that IS the answer: There isn't gonna be one?
Social history isn't about evolution at all, that'd be as if intellect can control it's evolution. Nature is, apparently, in charge of that, doesn't seem to matter if the given intellect is aware of the changes or not. Doesn't mean they won't try to skirt the issues, time will, eventually evolve them. Technology notwithstanding. (cheat threat, disease, death,etc) Apparently, nature it's self governs those predilections, selective qualities. Maybe, if those are completely removed, some how, then some sort of evolutionary 'apex' or 'final' evolution be realized. Synthesis 'seems' to do that, as if it's possible, but the story infers that such a feat is only a possibility, and probably not for organic species, as Edi proclaims it, but She's synthetic, mostly. What part defines her as an intellect? What part defines 'being'? But, in the end, it all seems to just be another 'part' of some non existent 'grand scheme' of nature. How to 'deal' with that and what is the 'answer' to the MEU.
Good luck with that, eh?
(maybe that's where some folks gets the idea(intellectually) that death is a signatory of some final evolution/godhead?)
Seival wrote...
Mastone wrote...
I think it is a bit sad that people still try to logically explain any of the endings and headcanon their way around the simple fact that it doesn't make sense whatsoever.
Those people are explaining their thoughts, because the endings make sense to them.
If they don't make sense to you... Well, it's your own personal problem I suppose. It's not a BioWare fault, and it's not other fans fault.
Greylycantrope wrote...
The only solution the Catalyst has been set on has been the Reapers, anything else it tried was before Harbinger came into existance. Once that happend it kept to the plan until now.Obadiah wrote...
@Greylycantrope
If the Crucible was designed to interact with the Citadel, then the Crucible plans would just say "use Crucible with Citadel", instead of "use Crucible with Catalyst," "Catalyst" being the term the AI uses to describe itself.
I wouldn't assume anything about the previous cycles, or what the Catalyst did in those cycles. It is entirely possible that the Catalyst once revealed itself to another cycle to find a solution, or another cycle discovered it, just not in the Control/Decision Chamber.
The first thing the previous cycles all lost control of was the Citadel, being hidden until the last minute is the entire point of the Reapers whole Citadel trap policy. The keepers also ensure no one pokes around the station too much for fear of breaking something they don't understand (like the keeper themselves, which explode if you poke around them too much). It's what we're told in game.
Modifié par Obadiah, 06 avril 2013 - 11:04 .
Megaton_Hope wrote...
Not getting sick for a long time may not be due to an effective immune system (in the sense of antibodies fighting off disease), but rather lack of exposure to things to fight off. The first tier of protection in your immune system is actually your skin, which keeps things from interacting with the tissues and cells inside your body.
Ice Cold J wrote...
Completely off topic... why is your name Jacob Taylor, but your avatar is a Geth Prime?
Modifié par jacob taylor416, 06 avril 2013 - 07:00 .
jacob taylor416 wrote...
Ice Cold J wrote...
Completely off topic... why is your name Jacob Taylor, but your avatar is a Geth Prime?
Jacob Taylor is my actual name, so yhea... not the character. Infact I don't like the character very much, just happen to share the same name.
Also to f*** with your mind.
jacob taylor416 wrote...
Okay here we go.Seival wrote...
jacob taylor416 wrote...
If I misquoted you, than I'm sorry, I have a lot on my mind.Seival wrote...
jacob taylor416 wrote...
Seival wrote...
We just have different views of evolution limits. You think that evolution is limitless because you can't see its limits from where you stand. But I think that evolution is limited, because I have a lot of examples of limited things - even something endless like looped paths have limits.
You even sated it yourself or you agreed with someone who said it, (*example not actual post*) that a living being that breathes oxygen and cyanide is completely poisonous to it, and you place him on a planet that has cyanide as a fundamental part of its atmosphere than he/she needs to adapt to cyanide, whether it is nature or synthetics that is evolution. And whether it's synthetics or natural their lungs will disappear (much like our appendix) because it is a waste of energy and resources. In terms of an energy source, it is impossible to reach 100%(see last paragraph excluding the edit) but does that mean we, or nature, will stop at 90%, NO! In no area of history have there ever been examples of that. Evolution is not a progress to a simple point, rather a forever changing system trying to achive an equalibrium with its everchanging environment (the universe).
Going back to the person on the cyanide planet, if you tera-form it and restrain a species from evolving that is not the final form of evolution you're simply trying to kill a puppy because you think that it is cutest as a puppy. If you truly believe that there is a perfect form of life, a "final stage of evolution" than I am both sympathetic and envious of your innocence and ignorance. Also may I read your examples.
I am fairly sure that you would argue that it is possible for a 100% efficiency, than here is a paragraph dedicated to disproving that (don't you feel special paragraph). For every conversion of energy there is a dispersion of heat and entropy, stated by the first two laws of thermal dynamics, a perpetual motion machine is impossible for this same reason. Every system releases heat or, unusable energy, in the form of entropy, stated in the first law of thermal dynamics. A system will always require energy in order to change it into a usable form of energy, shown in this equation G=H-TS where the amount of usable energy (G) is the amount of total energy (H) minus the temperature give off in Kelvin (T) times the amount of entropy given off (S), therefore the only completely efficient system is at 0 degrees Kelvin, which not only does not exist in nature but at which point nothing happens and nothing can. With that said, the second law of thermal dynamics states that a system not already at a thermal equilibrium (death) spontaneously evolves toward it, and therefore it will naturally try to achieve 100% efficiency even though it is only possible at nonexistence. What you call the "final state of evolution" is the thermodynamic equilibrium which only exists at nonexistence.
I don't even remember such argument. And this is not the first time you tell that I said something I didn't actually say.
About the example. It is out of place. Completely. You are trying to compare final evolution to reaching 100% efficiency. Adapting to everything doesn't mean achieving high efficiency. You can be ready to everything even at 10% efficiency. You will "produce a lot of heat while resisting", but you will still overcome an obstacle. Evolution is mostly about developing internal and external readiness. High efficiency is not important nor it's possible.
There are different ways to adapt to agressive environments. An organic being's physical limits allow limited adaptation to such environments through the body improvements. And Synthesis improves the physical limits themselves. But limits will always remain limits. Synthesis will make organic beings perfect and allow them to survive much more things without any outer shell, but will not allow them to survive vacuum for example. To survive vacuum or some other dangerous environment (that even synthetics may not survive), organics have to use devices like environmental suits.
That doesn't change the statement that synthesized creature is ready for any possible obstacles both internally and externally, while regular creature is not. Forever changing system is limited as any looped path. It goes through cycles, and repeat itself.
Although efficiency has everything to do with evolution, it doesn't matter if you can do something but if someone else can do it better than they survive, you die out, that's evolution, survival of the fittest. Therefore in order to be the "final point of evolution" you must be the most efficient possible, but reaching 100% is impossible (again I find myself having to go over this). Taking the experiments of the father of the theory of evolution itself, Darwin's finches, a main land finch could find the correct food source with its current beak, ye it still adapted in order to find and eat it more efficiently. Same with our evolution from apes, we were perfectly fine swinging with trees, and when the trees started to diminish in Africa, the first monkeys to adapt (Nakalipithecus) could walk on land just and find food just fine, yet they still evolved to (****** Habilis) who use tools. Are tools necessary? no just more efficient.
And if so that a synthesized creature could overcome any obstacle, they still aren't the most efficient, someone or something could do it better, and therefore they're more fit, and wha-la evolution occurs. Also you just contradicted yourself, you stated that it would make organics perfect but then stated that they can't survive in a vacuum and therefore not perfect, also synthetics can survive a vacuum.
Also the limits of an organism are not finite, if they were finite, we all would still be fish living in the ocean. They are only finite at a given point in time; a baby cannot lift 300 pounds, it simple can't, but it can, later in life when it's limits expand.
Evolution has nothing to do with efficiency. Some real life examples:
(1) My own immunity system is not efficient. I become ill very often since my childhood. Over time I used to suffer from all those diseases very often, and my body became always ready for one more disease that I will soon have. In my childhood it was terrible, and everyone told me that I have to improve my immune system. But now I see that not efficient immune system actually has advantages. I know people with very efficient immune system who didn't become ill for many years and were very proud of that. And I knew what happens when those people eventually become ill (immunity is not a 100% defense). They withstand disease very poorly, and have very high risk to gain some dangerous complications. They may die from something that I used to overcome in just few days without even need to stay home to cure myself. I with my not efficient immune system withstand diseases better than people with strong immune system. Why? Because I'm always ready and got used to be ill.
(2) There is a cross-road with very intense traffic. Crushes are quite often here obviously. You can try to improve the cross-road safety measures' efficiency as long as you want. You will reduce the crushes rate, but will never stop crushes from happening. What is the right decision here? The right decision is to forget about cross-road safety's efficiency. Remove the cross-road, dig a tunnel, and build an overpass. There will be no physical possibilities of crushes because of crossed traffic flows. Problem solved. And there is no need in increasing safety efficiency.
There are more examples like human body's "disadvantages" were actually advantages that made us the apex race of this planet. No, evolution is not about efficiency. It's about readiness. And evolution has limits like everything in the universe and the universe itself.
1.) That isn't evolution that's personal experience. You're taking fitness as physical fitness, applying it to small of a sample group, remember it's species not the individual that evolves. Let's say that an outbreak of malaria happened, people with the sickle cell trait have the most effective immune system (blood cells shaped just right so that malaria can't attach, but not too much where it clogs arteries and veins), they would be the one who natural selection selects, but there are plenty of people who don't have sickle cell and live because, that's just how it works. Also medicine isn't the best thing to argue about when it come to evolution, we have vaccines and antibiotics that bolster our immune system (I'm almost positive you use this in your counter argument so I'll debunk it now), those vaccines then are what evolve and change, those with better vaccines will be better suited to survive, and it will always get better and better.
2.) This one is simple (I will admit the first example had me thinking for a while), which system is more efficient at stopping crashes? The cross road or the tunnel? the tunnel correct? and that's what was chosen.
And the universe by definition is everything, it is limitless because everything outside it doesn't exist.
Modifié par Seival, 06 avril 2013 - 07:41 .
At this point I believe I no longer need to argue with you, it's clear you have no idea on what evolution is. Also here: something that is growing and growing at a faster rate every second, with no limits, that is the universe, and it is limitless.Seival wrote...
(1) Evolution consists of personal experiences. And as we all know, humans immune system became less efficient over time. Does this stop us from keep going? No, we just became ready to be ill any time and quite often.
(2) Tunnel-plus-overpass system prevailed because it has nothing to do with crossed traffic flow safety's efficiency. We just don't have to consider efficiency as a factor inside that system, and that system works perfectly. That's why it's better than cross-road. It's not about efficiency, it's about readiness.
I disagree with your definition of the universe. It's short-sighted, and sounds like "universe is limitless, because I can't see its limits from here". I will believe such definition only when you show me something limitless, which is impossible. As I told before even endless looped paths have limits.
Modifié par jacob taylor416, 06 avril 2013 - 07:48 .
Yep, I'm white so... yhea just a weird coincidence.Ice Cold J wrote...
jacob taylor416 wrote...
Ice Cold J wrote...
Completely off topic... why is your name Jacob Taylor, but your avatar is a Geth Prime?
Jacob Taylor is my actual name, so yhea... not the character. Infact I don't like the character very much, just happen to share the same name.
Also to f*** with your mind.
That's... acceptable.
Weird coincidence, though...
jacob taylor416 wrote...
At this point I believe I no longer need to argue with you, it's clear you have no idea on what evolution is. Also here: something that is growing and growing at a faster rate every second, with no limits, that is the universe, and it is limitless.Seival wrote...
(1) Evolution consists of personal experiences. And as we all know, humans immune system became less efficient over time. Does this stop us from keep going? No, we just became ready to be ill any time and quite often.
(2) Tunnel-plus-overpass system prevailed because it has nothing to do with crossed traffic flow safety's efficiency. We just don't have to consider efficiency as a factor inside that system, and that system works perfectly. That's why it's better than cross-road. It's not about efficiency, it's about readiness.
I disagree with your definition of the universe. It's short-sighted, and sounds like "universe is limitless, because I can't see its limits from here". I will believe such definition only when you show me something limitless, which is impossible. As I told before even endless looped paths have limits.
Modifié par Seival, 06 avril 2013 - 08:06 .
seival stahpSeival wrote...
Also, growth actually proves limits' existence. How can you tell that entity is actually growing if you can't trace that entity real size? Maybe the entity is just moving through the looped path faster or slower then you are, and you just confuse movement with growth?
Seival wrote...
jacob taylor416 wrote...
At this point I believe I no longer need to argue with you, it's clear you have no idea on what evolution is. Also here: something that is growing and growing at a faster rate every second, with no limits, that is the universe, and it is limitless.Seival wrote...
(1) Evolution consists of personal experiences. And as we all know, humans immune system became less efficient over time. Does this stop us from keep going? No, we just became ready to be ill any time and quite often.
(2) Tunnel-plus-overpass system prevailed because it has nothing to do with crossed traffic flow safety's efficiency. We just don't have to consider efficiency as a factor inside that system, and that system works perfectly. That's why it's better than cross-road. It's not about efficiency, it's about readiness.
I disagree with your definition of the universe. It's short-sighted, and sounds like "universe is limitless, because I can't see its limits from here". I will believe such definition only when you show me something limitless, which is impossible. As I told before even endless looped paths have limits.
Why are you so sure that it's me who has no idea? What if you are the one who has no idea? Think about that
Limitless growing you say? Then prove that such thing exists - give me an example from real life, please.
Also, growth actually proves limits' existence. How can you tell that entity is actually growing if you can't trace that entity real size? Maybe the entity is just moving through the looped path faster or slower then you are, and you just confuse movement with growth?
Seival is actually a Reaper sent back in time todeatharmonic wrote...
Seival wrote...
jacob taylor416 wrote...
At this point I believe I no longer need to argue with you, it's clear you have no idea on what evolution is. Also here: something that is growing and growing at a faster rate every second, with no limits, that is the universe, and it is limitless.Seival wrote...
(1) Evolution consists of personal experiences. And as we all know, humans immune system became less efficient over time. Does this stop us from keep going? No, we just became ready to be ill any time and quite often.
(2) Tunnel-plus-overpass system prevailed because it has nothing to do with crossed traffic flow safety's efficiency. We just don't have to consider efficiency as a factor inside that system, and that system works perfectly. That's why it's better than cross-road. It's not about efficiency, it's about readiness.
I disagree with your definition of the universe. It's short-sighted, and sounds like "universe is limitless, because I can't see its limits from here". I will believe such definition only when you show me something limitless, which is impossible. As I told before even endless looped paths have limits.
Why are you so sure that it's me who has no idea? What if you are the one who has no idea? Think about that
Limitless growing you say? Then prove that such thing exists - give me an example from real life, please.
Also, growth actually proves limits' existence. How can you tell that entity is actually growing if you can't trace that entity real size? Maybe the entity is just moving through the looped path faster or slower then you are, and you just confuse movement with growth?
Karl Pilkington, is that you?
Mastone wrote...
Seival wrote...
Mastone wrote...
I think it is a bit sad that people still try to logically explain any of the endings and headcanon their way around the simple fact that it doesn't make sense whatsoever.
Those people are explaining their thoughts, because the endings make sense to them.
If they don't make sense to you... Well, it's your own personal problem I suppose. It's not a BioWare fault, and it's not other fans fault.
No they just don't make sense from any approach to the narrative.
Also saying that Bioware is not at fault with the games they have been making lately would be something that comes close to lying ( to oneself).
I do not blame people from investing time to try and understand to a certain extend, but there comes a point where you really have to look at what the facts are and look at things provided by the game and not the stuff you headcanon to make it fit/plausible.
If you really want a discusion on what you have said if only to emphasize I do understand, I would argue that evolution is a gradual process mostly forced by environment/living conditions, not by a magic beam .
This:
"Synthesis is the final evolution of life. Control is one step before the final evolution of life."
Is just complete nonsense, even though it is highly probable that Humans will gradually ad more tech/science to enhance humanity in some shape or form, it remains to be seen that humanity will exist very long in an evolutionary sense of the word up until then it is mere speculation.
It could be that WW3 brakes out and at the end of it we get thrown back to the dark ages or worse extinction.
Synthesis also has a very broad range from a prostatic limb, artificial eye, nanotechnology to cure infections, deceases and wounds from within, control is also very relative and broad and is not below or above synthesis merely something that can coexist with the latter.
Now if history does prove something it is that destruction is the greatest creator/propagator of new life or change in food chain hierarchy.
The BigBang created the universe, coliding matter and stars created planets and solarsystems.
An asteroid or a number of them destroyed the multimiljon year reign of the dinosaurs
At some point in the future our solarsystem will collide with the Andromeda galaxy ..which will create a new universe..
back to you Seival
Modifié par Seival, 07 avril 2013 - 12:44 .
Seival wrote...
Also, growth actually proves limits' existence. How can you tell that entity is actually growing if you can't trace that entity real size? Maybe the entity is just moving through the looped path faster or slower then you are, and you just confuse movement with growth?
Seival wrote...
(1) Evolution consists of personal experiences. And as we all know, humans immune system became less efficient over time. Does this stop us from keep going? No, we just became ready to be ill any time and quite often.
(2) Tunnel-plus-overpass system prevailed because it has nothing to do with crossed traffic flow safety's efficiency. We just don't have to consider efficiency as a factor inside that system, and that system works perfectly. That's why it's better than cross-road. It's not about efficiency, it's about readiness.
I disagree with your definition of the universe. It's short-sighted, and sounds like "universe is limitless, because I can't see its limits from here". I will believe such definition only when you show me something limitless, which is impossible. As I told before - even endless looped paths have limits.
byarru wrote...
Bioware think so, and, well, they make canon, not us...
So yeah, I also think so
Asuukuru wrote...
Seival wrote...
(1) Evolution consists of personal experiences. And as we all know, humans immune system became less efficient over time. Does this stop us from keep going? No, we just became ready to be ill any time and quite often.
(2) Tunnel-plus-overpass system prevailed because it has nothing to do with crossed traffic flow safety's efficiency. We just don't have to consider efficiency as a factor inside that system, and that system works perfectly. That's why it's better than cross-road. It's not about efficiency, it's about readiness.
I disagree with your definition of the universe. It's short-sighted, and sounds like "universe is limitless, because I can't see its limits from here". I will believe such definition only when you show me something limitless, which is impossible. As I told before - even endless looped paths have limits.
This is going to be my last reply, you clearly have no understanding of evolution, therefore any future argument on the subject with you would be pointless.
(1) Evolution by definition does not work on an individual level, therefore it cannot consist of personal experiences. It works by changing the frequency of alleles in a population. The lowest biological organizational level evolution works on is a population. The fact that you believe it works on an individual level and it consists of personal experiences show you fail to understand what evolution is.
(2) The idea of the tunnel plus overpass still looks at change as a one time obstacle and as a constant. You clearly see evolution as a unidirection system of absolutes. You fail to see any other alternatives, also you fail to realize that even if you find a solution, that solution will still have problems arise through times, no system is perfect. You claim to believe that something is not limitless simply because you fail to see the limits. By that same logic, then simply because you fail to see the problems with a system doesnt mean the system is perfect.
As my final thought on the subject, i suggest you look into evolution again, there are clearly some key concepts you are not grasping. More importantly you are basing a belief system on a theory you dont understand, and using it as to support your beliefs when the actual theory directly contracts what you claim it supports.
That has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. It doesn't touch peoples' genetics at all.Seival wrote...
(1) Universe provides challenges for the entire populations, but inside those populations individuals react on the challenges differently. Some develop new abilities/properties faster than others, and after that they spread what they've learned/gained within that population. That means evolution consists of huge number of different persons' experiences, i.e. personal experiences.
I believe that evolution and universe have limits because I have a lot of valid examples of limited things, and no valid examples of limitless things.(2)
Just because no-one here can see it doesn't mean that a better solution isn't possible. It certainly isn't a perfect solution and indeed, there's no such thing because "best possible" and "perfect" are always matters of opinion.Neither does it mean they do (well, there are probably only so many quantum states the universe can be in which is some sort of limit but it'll be such a ludicrous number that it's not worth bothering about).Also, if you can't see limits from where you stand, then it doesn't mean limits do not exist.
Modifié par AdrynBliss, 07 avril 2013 - 01:13 .
Retour en haut
