Meaningless sentence

back to http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology

Conclusion
When Natural Selection isn't used as a metaphor (Preferential decision) or PatrickMatthew's natural means of competitive selection(what Darwin actually meant with ns) it becomes Orwellian doublethink: the power of holding two contradictory beliefs and accepting both of them.

Meaningless sentences

 * ... a free-rider is a trait that could have been acted upon by selection,... - PatternOrDesign,Jerry Fodor
 * .... by the process of natural selection ....* Decisions can contemplated, directed, thoughtful, hasty, slow, reluctant but not 'natural' - DernavichInfidels
 * ..... natural selection cannot increase information .... . This is a favorite amongst my fellow YEC brethren in the Lord Jesus. They are sadly more confused then the atheists. Whatever the reason for information decrease/increase in genes, it has nothing to do with anything getting naturaled. - Robot1
 * ... explain how Natural Selection leads to increased Fitness1... Which is like asking one to explain how square circles leads to increased equilibrium or 'explain' how a traffic light can be both red and green at the same time. We need to consider that by definition a decision or selection can't be natural - Preferential decision. A decision can be preferential where 'natural' is used as a metaphor for preferential. The English language is a metaphorical marshmallow.
 * ...Julio cranks his wooden cheese...
 * .... Colorless green ideas sleep furiously ... Colorless green, Chomsky
 * ....couldn't account for human intelligence purely by the action of selection... If by selection we mean survival, then we have a cause-effect inversion. Survival is an effect, not a cause - Chomsky
 * Jacques Derrida, Shakespeare pending

Dissimilar terms describe same concept
natural preservation, accumulation, selection or survival are used to formulate different sentences that refer to the same concept. A 'natural preservation' can still pass as meaningful, not so with 'natural selection', unless we mean Preferential decision. Lets formulate PatrickMatthew's and MalThus meaningful idea natural means of competitive selection using accumulation, survival(HenryFairfieldOsborn) or Darwin's preferred term preservation.


 * By a natural(unintended) competitive survival process the strong survived over the weak to dominate an ecological niche.
 * By a natural competitive accumulation process the strong survived over the weak to dominate an ecological niche.
 * By a natural competitive preservation process the strong survived over the weak to dominate an ecological niche.
 * By a natural competitive domination process the strong survived over the weak to dominate an ecological niche.
 * By a natural competitive selection process the strong survived over the weak to dominate an ecological niche.

Survival, accumulation, preservation etc. are dissimilar terms that can replace selection to still reflect the core Popper unfalsifiable ideas of JamesHutton, MalThus and Matthew's. Strong <=> survived, says the same thing twice, if the other animal survived we would be told the same story. It is formulated so that its truth cannot be disputed, making it a logical fallacy from which any conclusion is a non-sequitur.

Random and Non-Random
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/JerryAdler used '.... random natural selection...' Dawkins and latest revision to ns wikipedia page use '....non-random natural selection....'. With random Charles Hodge interpreted Darwin as undirected. Ken Ham says '.... I believe in Natural Selection. We have the following meaningless nonsense:
 * non-random random undirected selection
 * random undirected selection
 * directed undirected selection

This Newspeak induces mental illness so that a person can't come a saving knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Prof. Herrmann
Prof. Herrmann at http://www.raherrmann.com wrote ".....A language, as we know it, if improperly applied along with classical logic can lead to meaningless statements when meaningful phrases are employed....The fact that there exists millions of meaningless statements in the sense of classical logic is relevant in that it shows that the descriptive power of any human language is limited...

Sokal hoax
http://ssis.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/D34Sokal.html

"My article is a melange of truth, half truth, quarter-truths, falsehoods, non-sequiturs, and syntactically correct sentences that have no meaning whatsoever." (Sokal, 1996.) "It took me a lot of writing and rewriting before the article reached the desired level of unclarity." (Mukerjee, 1998, p. 18.)

Hoax paper accepted
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/15/hoax_paper_accepted/


 * "....We are trying to relate the analytic thinking required in focused conference sessions, to the synthetic thinking, required for analogies generation, which calls for multi-focus domain and divergent thinking. We are trying to promote a synergic relation between analytically and synthetically oriented minds, as it is found between left and right brain hemispheres, by means of the corpus callosum....."

Stribling's paper consisted of randomly generated buzzwords munged into complete English sentences by a madlib-like program, so they were grammatically correct but meaningless: much like one of Jonathan Schwartz's weblog entries, or a Cory Doctorow novel.

The Blank Swan
The Blank Swan.

http://www.amazon.com/Blank-Swan-End-Probability/dp/0470725222


 * "....Contingency is the writing/trading thread that we keep pursuing despite the fact that the context has been saturated by replication....." 

William Russell commented:
 * '....That's a great sentence. Unfortunately, it took me two days of thinking before I understood it. This is an interesting book, but it is not a leisurely read for the average Joe.....'

Notes: William Russell should consider that in trying to sound clever and over-awh with rhetorical wit, one could actually wind up writing grammatically correct but meaningless nonsense that obfuscates what might be a valid concept.

http://www.amazon.com/Blank-Swan-End-Probability/product-reviews/0470725222/ref=cm_cr_pr_btm_link_2?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&pageNumber=2&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending

Gianantonio Bissaro wrote:
 * The author wrote in some blog that his "ideas" are so advanced that it will take years for people to understand them (I quote literally: "I don't expect my writings to make sense to you immediately; they probably won't before a few years"). ....... I think that all clever readers have already realized what is here to be understood. Nothing, unfortunately

Further meaningless nonsense: http://books.google.co.za/books?id=QkJSt_2UmL8C&pg=PT165&lpg=PT165&dq=derrida+blank+swan&source=bl&ots=Kwn1Bpo5mq&sig=ynF79ZrtQ_Jxn94q1AxCH066Ci4&hl=en&ei=PouETvO9EsedOvXyrNUB&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false


 * ...History is faster than possibility and harder than conceptual, thought, which knows only possibility...

Notes:. History is an effect and never repeats itself, because each generation has different circumstances, other than that the sentence is obvious meaningless hubris.

Cosmological natural selection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Smolin

The fecund universes theory of cosmology advanced by Lee Smolin, also called cosmological natural selection theory, suggests that a process analogous to biological natural selection applies at the grandest scales. Smolin summarized the idea in a book aimed at a lay audience called The Life of the Cosmos. The theory surmises that a collapsing black hole causes the emergence of a new universe on the "other side", whose fundamental constant parameters (speed of light, Planck length and so forth) may differ slightly from those of the universe where the black hole collapsed. Each universe therefore gives rise to as many new universes as it has black holes. Thus the theory contains the evolutionary ideas of "reproduction" and "mutation" of universes, but has no direct analogue of natural selection. However, given any universe that can produce black holes that successfully spawn new universes, it is possible that some number of those universes will reach heat death with unsuccessful parameters. So, in a sense, fecundity cosmological natural selection is one where universes could die off before successfully reproducing, just as any biological being can die without having offspring.[4]

Links
http://www.thecrazyaustralian.com/un-meaningless-sentences/ This resonates with me,  had to impose some sort of meaning on the grammatical gargoyle Natural Selection because it is so entreched, finally managed to do this with preferential decision, which reflects the PatternOrDesign world view.

Because Sentences have no meaning, one must determine what the idea, paradigm or world view is first and use sentences to to express such view.

Wikipedia never defines natural selection

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection Natural selection is the nonrandom process by which biologic traits become more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution.

We are told that something labeled 'natural selection' is the non-random process, but aren't informed as to what this Natural Selection is. If we replace natural selection with preferential decision the Epicureans object and say that natural selection doesn't mean this, which is correct because Sentences have no meaning. They don't know what it is they mean with natural selection as observed by Jerry Fodor in his LRB book review .... what then is the intended meaning of natural selection.....the question is wide open as of this writing.... On his blogging heads podcast he stated: ... if you scratch two biologists you will get two different definitions of natural selection....

This is a strong indication that the real problem is that we are dealing with Meaningless sentences, trying to incorporate volitional type language to express a world view where volition, purpose or will are illusions.

Other
Epicureans are playing with Henry Morris, Ken Ham, Dembski, Behe etc. like a cat plays with a mouse. They force all who would debate their materialist world view to acquiesce to their semantic marshmallows, laced with Meaningless sentences. Ken Ham, Dawkins, Behe, Dembski etc are deceived, this though doesn't invalidate their world views necessarily. YEC is correct because the Masoretic says so - Godel's incompleteness theorem, Godelian Wall. One can accept with one's heart what the Textus Receptus says based the testimony of its authors - Bible isn't defined.

The Meaningless sentence litmus test is used to take down theists and especially YEC, excluding them from medical studies etc. It is like imagine the Apostle Paul being expected to explain how Zeus made the world by the Roman Epicureans. Christians are denying their faith in Christ by using Meaningless sentences. It is becoming ever more impossible to be accepted into a trade guild without passing the Epicurean Meaningless sentence litmus test. For those who love the truth and abhor Meaningless sentences it will become eventually impossible to obtain any sort of academic qualification from Epicurean government officials. Many government schools will fail children if they refuse to use Meaningless sentence, a form of Stasi like persecution, via unrelenting psychological pressure(our milksop laws don't allow the Epicureans to kill Christians).