Biology Talk

Guest

New textbook: "Darwin Evolution is a rule of science and the real
theory is Superdeterminism from Quantum Mechanics"
published on Internet newsgroups of sci.physics,sci.bio.technology,
sci.bio.misc starting 1995 and amassing
those very many posts and compiling them into this textbook by April
2008.

Preface: If the reader knows my history will know that I discovered
the Atom Totality theory in 1990 and I was
not looking to discover this theory but it happened because I was
looking to discover something about
Darwin Evolution. You see, before 1990, I was looking to mathematize
the Darwin theory of Evolution
and by 1990, instead of mathematizing Darwin Evolution, I discovered
the Atom Totality theory and once
I discovered the Atom Totality theory I put most of biology thinking
on hold and focused on physics
and this Atom Totality theory. Not until 1995 did I resume thinking on
biology, and the sad story here is that
I had not realized from 1990 to 1995, that the Atom Totality theory
destroys alot of the Darwin Evolution theory.
It does not destroy it completely but it makes Darwin Evolution a
nontheory, or it makes it a rule of thumb,
such as a slide ruler that engineers use to carry around that gave
them approximate answers but not answers
that are precision. Answers that are close to the truth but not the
real truth.

So before 1990, I was working on mathematizing Darwin Evolution and by
1990, I happened to discover
the Atom Totality theory, and then by 1995, I realized that the Atom
Totality theory had destroyed
the Darwin Evolution theory. So I want to tell of that personal
history of mine. So why did it take me
five years to realize that the one theory had made Darwin Evolution a
rule and no longer a theory of
science? One of the reasons is that when you are involved in science
research and discovery, sometimes
the full reach of the consequences of your discovery does not sink
into your system of thoughts until years
later. But I believe the main reason that it took until 1995 for me to
realize Darwin Evolution was a failed science
was that I was concentrated and focused on the Atom Totality theory
and was not wanting to be bothered
or distracted by biology. What I write here is well documented with
posts almost daily in the 1990s. So a
interested reader can actually see and spot where I was under the
delusion or spell that Darwin Evolution
was still good from 1990 to 1995 when in fact it was sunk by 1990.

Now I gave the numbering of #1 to #50 above for I intend to use about
50 of my old posts as the first 50
pages of this new textbook, posts that were made in the 1990s decade.

There are two key ideas concerning the Atom Totality theory and Darwin
Evolution or biology and those
key ideas are:

(1) Bell Inequality with Aspect Experiment results
(2) Perfect DNA/ RNA equals photons/neutrinos

What sinks or defeats or tears apart Darwin Evolution is the physics
of the Bell Inequality of Quantum Mechanics.
The Bell Inequality places Quantum Mechanics on the large scale
Universe of the distances clear across
the Cosmos. And what solves the Bell Inequality results of Action at a
Distance is what John Bell termed
as Superdeterminism. In other words, the world has "no free will". And
that all living creatures are fated
to do what they end up doing. All living creatures are puppets on
strings.

If every action is ordered up and there is no free will in the Cosmos,
then there cannot be a true theory
of Darwin Evolution which depends on probabilities.

As for the second theory of Perfect DNA inside every photon or
neutrino has to be true in order to carry out
a world of Superdeterminism.

John Bell discovered Superdeterminism, I believe in the 1980s (will
have to check on the dates) but John
had trouble with it for he could not give a "prime mover" for
Superdeterminism. If all life is puppets on a string
then who is the puppetmaster. So John was stuck. But by 1990, I
discovered the Atom Totality theory
and so I could tell John Bell, who unfortunately died too young, that
there is a puppetmaster and it is the
Atom Totality where the Nucleus is a grand cosmic control center.

So to carry out a Cosmic Superdeterminism where every thought and
every action is controlled by a Nucleus
of the Atom Totality, what is the best control mechanism?? That answer
is that every photon or neutrino
when split apart harbors perfect DNA inside the photon or neutrino. So
that when a photon or neutrino
lands inside a brain or body of a creature, the DNA inside the photon
registers a geometrical image in the
brain. So every thought and every action that occurrs is because of
the input of a unzipped DNA from a
photon messenger.

I discovered this theory that a photon or neutrino is *perfect DNA/
RNA* in 1995.

So I have two books to write about, one involves the Bell Inequality
which gives Superdeterminism and which
defeats Darwin Evolution and the second book discusses the idea that a
photon harbors perfect-DNA inside
itself.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Guest

I apologize for these two very long posts, for what I am trying to do
is write this book
on the Internet but involves several of my old posts from the 1990s
decade.

So what I intend to do is rewrite the below and incorporate them into
this book. There
is alot of errors in the below posts so I have alot of editing to do.

-------------------------------------------------------------
From: arc_plutonium@hotmail.com (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.bio.misc,sci.bio.technology,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Test for Darwin Evolution Re: can biotechnology wipe out the
tent-caterpillar
Date: 3 Sep 1999 18:15:57 GMT
Organization: Pu
Lines: 113
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (7qp38t$civ$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
References: (7qe8l7$7tq$1@news.duq.edu> (7qeeht
$kh6$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> (7qj84m$ekn$1@news.duq.edu>
(37cddb37.4353685@agate.berkeley.edu> (7qktkm$u2g
$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> (7qn5ps$b11$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
(7qnns0$l1u$1@dartvax.dartmouth.e>

In article (7qnns0$l1u$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
plutonium_archimedes@yahoo.com (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:

Guest

Let me apologize for those two long previous posts by writing a short
post of what this
book is all about. And perhaps a book that is going to replace Darwin
Evolution deserves
a long expose of a book. Or maybe a short book that is too the point
is better than a
long drawn out book. Maybe I should end up doing both a long book and
then turn around
and do a book that is extremely short and sweet.

Anyway here is a paragraph synopsis of what this book is about and
where it is going.

Quantum Mechanics had a fight between Bohr and Einstein called EPR and
the winner
of that fight was Bohr who said essentially that if two beams of light
with information
is initially connected and then sent in opposite directions in the
Cosmos, no matter
how far apart, that if you make a change in one beam, it instantly
changes the other
beam. It was called "spooky action at a distance". John Bell found a
way to resolve
this with Superdeterminism that all actions are fated and that every
thing is puppets
on a string to a puppetmaster. There is no free-will in
Superdeterminism. So what this
book is all about is to reconcile Quantum Mechanics with Darwin
Evolution. Either
Superdeterminism is the true theory and Darwin Evolution is the mere
rule or approximation,
or the reverse. Both cannot be the true theory of science. And the
reason that this
question is now before the world science community, even though EPR
was around
in the mid 20th century, is because John Bell with his brilliant
solution of Superdeterminism
could not make Superdeterminism a valid rival to Darwin Evolution
because John Bell
only had the Big Bang theory to place Superdeterminism in a cosmic
frame. The Big Bang
theory has no puppetmaster to control all puppets (control all living
and nonliving things).
But the Atom Totality theory was discovered in 1990 and it has huge
room for a puppetmaster
to control everything that happens in the world. The puppetmaster in
the Atom Totality theory
is the Nucleus of the Atom Totality which is in the direction of the
Great Attractor.

So, in the above paragraph, I have thus outlined this entire book.
That I bring together Quantum
Mechanics and especially EPR and John Bell's Inequality and his
solution to it all by Superdeterminism.
And what I do, is simply add on to John Bell with an Atom Totality
theory and then raise the
spectre of the question, can you have Darwin Evolution in a Cosmos
that is Superdeterministic?

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Guest

One of those old posts I glanced at talks of what are fake theories of
science versus true theories
of science. A fake theory is such as saying Biblical Creationism is
how plants and animals and
humanity came about. There is virtually not a single thread of truth
in applying Biblical Creationism
to that of biology. When it comes to biology, the Bible is a complete
lie. Akin to if I said
there is a living T Rex dinosaur in Utah is a lie.

But now, here is the problem I am faced with. Should I say that Darwin
Evolution theory is a
lie?

Should I say that Newtonian Mechanics is a lie compared to Quantum
Mechanics.

Here I get into deep trouble. And perhaps science needs to have a
entire subject on this
issue.

I glanced one of my old posts delineating what are fake theories of
science that are commonly
accepted. Trouble is that fake theories have a degree of liaring. In
the Big Bang theory,
most of it is a lie except that a little of the Big Bang theory
coincides with some features
of the Atom Totality theory. So not all of the Big Bang is a lie, but
let us say 99% is a lie.

Darwin Evolution theory has components of mutation, and genetic
recombination and
reproductive isolation which are components in Superdeterminism. So
not all of Darwin
Evolution theory is a lie.

So the problem is that science does not have a terminology for fake
theories, or theories
in error. Or theories that have some parts correct but other parts are
false.

What is the distinction in science for a Theory versus a Rule?

What is the distinction in science for a Theory versus a Algorithm?

Is an algorithm in science the same as a rule in science?

So science needs to clean up this area of terminology. To define what
we mean
by Theory, then its next best thing of Rule and then its next best
thing of Algorithm
and how they fit with the concept of Model.

So we have at least these concepts to define:
Theory
Rule
Algorithm
Model

But it is not that easy, because we have to define true theory from
"fake theory".

The best example in all of science is Newtonian Mechanics versus
Quantum Mechanics.
When I went to College in the early 1970s my advanced physics textbook
had a chapter
where it diagramed Newtonian Mechanics versus Quantum Mechanics and
placed NM
as large heavy objects moving at slow speeds and placed QM in this
diagram as tiny
objects moving near the speed of light.

Trouble is that EPR, Bell Inequality and Superdeterminism dispels that
diagram as a lie,
where QM exists over all the Universe whether large and heavy and slow
moving or tiny and
fast moving.

So the only true physics is Quantum Mechanics. So does that place
Newtonian Mechanics
as a Rule or as a Algorithm or as a fake and lie?

Now I hate to wax philosophically, but I may have to apply philosophy
here and say that
all of science of its best theories, they are all deficient in some
regard. They are all in need
of some repair or improvement, even Quantum Mechanics and even the
most vaunted theory
of all Atomic theory. They are all in need of repair and improvement.
They are on the track or
path of truth but they need improvements.

In that vain, then let me say that Newtonian Mechanics became Quantum
Mechanics. That
Darwin Evolution was a stepping stone theory that transitioned into
the superior theory of
Superdeterminism and before Darwin Evolution was Religion.

So we can say that the path to biology theory was Religion then came
Darwin Evolution and
now comes Superdeterminism.

We can all agree that truth exists for physics or biology and the
present held theory for
physics and biology are transitional theories that need repair and
improvement.

So these terms of Theory, of Rule, of Algorithm, of Model, etc etc are
helper terms but
not definitive terms. I should add a term of Truth so the sequence
really goes like this:

Truth is approached by Theory, then Rule then Algorithm then Model.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Guest

Perhaps I should devote a whole chapter to this desire to well define
these concepts of
theory
model
algorithm
rule

We all know the difference between something that is true and
something that is false,
but the trouble thereof lies in when something is a mix of true and
false, when it has
partial truth and the other parts are false. When I say "the earth is
flat" is mostly false
but in a small sense of where I find a square meter of Earth we can
indeed say that small
section has due to the geography of mountains has eliminated its
curvature to be a
"flat square meter".

I suppose these definitions of theory and rule and algorithm should be
Pragmatic
definitions, because even though we know Newtonian Mechanics is false
and replaced by
Quantum Mechanics, do we start teaching students for their first time
introduction to physics,
do we start them off with Quantum Mechanics and never a mention of
Newtonian Mechanics?
This is where I believe we should be pragmatic and teach them
Newtonian Mechanics and
once they learned NM, then it is easier to tell them, well, that was
all wrong because Quantum
Mechanics is closer to the truth. It is easier to teach them NM and
then explain why it is wrong
and how QM fixes the problems.

Likewise, I feel it is pragmatic to teach High School and College
students Darwin Evolution
first, even though it is false theory. To teach them Darwin Evolution,
and then when they
thoroughly know Darwin Evolution, come in and teach them how Quantum
Mechanics
Superdeterminism replaces Darwin Evolution.

Sure, it is conceivable that we can teach students only Quantum
Mechanics starting in
High School and never ever mention Newtonian Mechanics, but that is
not pragmatic and
much more difficult than if we taught them NM first and later tell
them why it is all wrong and
how QM makes it right.

This pragmatism of living life and education is also easily seen in
how most people live their
lives.

Most people on Earth are not intelligent enough to ever grasp Darwin
Evolution and I would
say that 3/4 of ever human alive today are incapable of understanding
Darwin Evolution. Only
1/4, I would estimate has a good enough brain to understand Darwin
Evolution. So of that
3/4 humanity, their lack of intelligence forces them to accept the
next best thing which is
religion, whether Christianity or any of the other religions. Religion
is a default for those minds
not good enough to ever grasp or understand Darwin Evolution. So being
pragmatic in teaching
and education, every human mind needs a "theory" of how the world is
formed and so if
only 1/4 of human minds today are capable of understanding Darwin
Evolution, then it is
not practical to go about trying to teach and educate those 3/4 of
humanity who would never
understand Darwin Evolution. But both Religion and Darwin Evolution
are false theories. Physics
is the most correct theory as to how and why life exists. So do we
start High School students
teaching them Quantum Mechanics and Superdeterminism? No, we respond
pragmatically
and teach them Darwin Evolution and later, once they grasp Darwin
Evolution we teach them
that it was wrong and how Quantum Mechanics corrects Darwin Evolution.

Now let me point out an analogy that I often like to use as that of
the bicycle rider and
the training wheels. A toddler or youngster first learning how to ride
a bicycle is not lifted
onto a bicycle of two wheels but is put on a four wheeler of two
trainer wheels. This is pragmatic
and a stage before advancing to actual bicycle riding.

Likewise in our education system, we can start a High Schooler with
Quantum Mechanics for
physics, but it is far to cumbersome. Instead we start with Newtonian
Mechanics.

In High School, for biology, we can start off with EPR and then Bell
Inequality and then
Superdeterminism and never a single mention of Darwin or Natural
Selection. But that is far
to cumbersome. Instead we start with Darwin Evolution.

In the lives of those 3/4 humanity that does not have a good enough
mind to comprehend
theories of science such as Darwin Evolution, those minds start off
with Santa Claus, as some
imaginary being who does wonders and goodness, and then the Santa
Claus theory is
added onto by a religion theory such as Jesus the son of God. So
religion starts with a
Santa Claus and graduates with Jesus. So Religion is the fall back or
default zone for minds
that can never grasp or understand science. And families of religion
usually do not start their
infants teaching them some gobbledygook passage in a bible, no, they
start their infants with
teaching them that a Santa Claus exists and if you behave good and act
good and be good
then this is what Santa Claus does.

So in this manner of speaking we can see that the world has ladders of
Truth where truth
is the highest rung of the ladder of life. And where only 1/4 of human
minds can climb past
Santa Claus, then past the rung of Jesus et al, and then climb higher
to the rung of Darwin
Evolution, but at the height of Darwin Evolution only 1/4 of humanity
can climb that high, but
the rungs are higher and here it hurts the brain and mind of those
climbers for the Truth. The
higher rungs are now in physics and of those 1/4 who are capable of
reaching Darwin Evolution
the next rungs higher will lose 90 percent of that 1/4 of humanity.
What is 0.1 times 0.25 is
2.5%. So only about 2 out of every 100 humans is able to climb past
Darwin Evolution for
a higher truth.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies