John Edser  wrote or quoted:
> 
> > > > > JE:-
> > > > > My critique of the Hamilton's Rule
> > > > > is in two distinct parts:
> > > > > 1) Proof of a basic error.
> > > > > 2) An attempt to remove it.
> > > > [...]
> > > > > Hamilton's rule:
> > > > >                 rb>c ...(1)
> > > > >
> > > > > (1) Not a single constant is represented within
> > > > > the rule. The terms r,b and c are just variables.
> > > > > Thus the rule has absolutely no frame of reference,
> > > > > i.e. it is logical but not rational. Within the
> > > > > sciences any rational mathematical expression must
> > > > > refer back to at least one constant term in order
> > > > > to make any sense. [...]
> 
> > > > TT:-
> > > > Very funny.
> > > > I note that:
> > > >   F = ma;
> > > > ...doesn't seem to reference any constant terms either.
> 
> > > JE:-
> > > I'm afraid TT is Incorrect.
> > > Within Newtonian mechanics Mass (m) must
> > > remain constant with velocity which in this
> > > case is simply implied by acceleration [...]
> 
> > TT:-
> > Mass is a constant?!?
> > If so what is its value? ;-)
> 
> JE:-
> Mass can be partitioned and remain a
> constant. The starting value of (m) must remain
> exactly the same as its finishing value when no
> mass is added or subtracted.

Yes - and what about when mass is added or subtracted
as - for instance - in a space rocket?

F = ma applies equally well to space rockets as
other objects (though of course you have to integrate).

> > TT:-
> > So: is the second law of thermodynamics
> > "RATIONAL"?
> > It's expression doesn't seem to contain any
> > constants I can see: it's expression is
> > usually of the form delta-S > 0.
> > ...and yet it is easy to imagine the
> > second law being false - i.e. it is
> > a testable piece of physics.
> 
> JE:-
> The 2nd law can be usefully sketched
> out as:-
> 
> Time's Arrow --> stuff goes wrong --> Entropy
> 
> Entropy represents a maximand of physics
> where entropy must always be maximised.
> Local entropy decreases caused by living
> systems are paid for by local increases.
> Thus life is 100% neutral to the entropy
> maximand. This being the case Darwin's
> maximand fitness does not contradict
> physics.

At the end of all this, I'm still not clear
about whether you agree that the second law of
thermodynamics has no constants in it - and
therefore is not testable science -
according to your world view.

> > TT:-
> > For instance I am more likely to roll at least one six if
> > I throw three dice rather than two.
> > That statement has no constants in it - but it is a) accurate
> > in this universe, and b) possible to subject to experimental testing.
> 
> JE:-
> Probabilities attempt to measure a constant
> by approximation. It is a guessed constant
> that allows the rationality of probability.
> The guessed maximand in your example is the
> largest probability that you will throw a six.
> Without this maximand which will approach
> a constant value the more you test it,
> the whole thing is just irrational.

So, to formalise this, for dice of all types:

  p_one_or_more_six(n dice) > p_one_or_more_six(m dice) when n > m

Are you claiming that that statement has a "guessed" constant
in it?  Therefore it is an acceptable scientific statement?

I'm afraid I can't easily see the constant you are referring to.

Maybe you are referring to the six itself?

If so, we will have to redo the experiment - after scrubbing off the
numbers and painting the faces of the dice different colours.
-- 
__________
 |im |yler  http://timtyler.org/  tim{at}tt1lock.org  Remove lock to reply.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 11/24/04 9:40:34 PM