Evolution, shmevolution.

Edited out from
lichess.org/forum/community-blog-discussions/ublog-VurlfRGt?page=5#43
about the image on top of the blog (linked from first post there). To-do find link to that picture. The linear line view of evolution, implying increasing worth from some value system, usually one side not very “evolved” and the other being the pinnacle.

Modern theory of evolution, still not getting through, hypothesis:

Could it be that the speciation tree dominating imagery or view is also contributing to the lack of awareness that everything is a web of co-evolution, that there are interactions in the transversal never shown?

Note that I am not saying the tree is wrong itself, but its systematic pure tree emphasis. It is lacking a lot of the knowledge about how this excerpted summary of just one aspect of evolution that is compatible with growing molecular sequences databases so far. Here is more precision perhaps of what I am trying to grasp and share at the same time. (I am sorry that I have to share the ugly discovery process, I have limited time/energy/stamina to do either, so both).

It is not presenting the physics that underlies how this scaffolding tree understanding of the whole shebang came about. That it is only a trace and mostly only asking one question: that of the conservation and inheritance inferrable from sequence data under neutral evolution filtering of the information and only asking about branching and chronological ordering in the data fitting, projection that is the tree data structure.

It is half of the story. Or maybe less. It does not talk at all about selection forces. And that there might be very non-local interactions (in the transversal angle) if we had the full model of the whole tree including its dynamics and bio-physical (etc... ) constraints (static laws of physics, etc...).

But with the questions that I know it is a scientific understanding best current working theory of, and knowing what it does not even ask, I do hold it as a valuable part of the theory of evolution. Part of the facts.

But on the presentation or propagation of it, by not containing all that I know as assumptions and actual questions being the context of that resulting formatted knowledge. It is not putting a dent on the foresight problem that is part of the evolution science field. That of explaining how this trace of evolution speciation events happened, and how would it continue to happen and explain the current snapshot state of the biosphere, us as a species, included.

The not displayed “forces” and static biophysical (and derived) constraints of the physical universe context, and the biological mechanism of exploration, and reproduction (persistence or fluctuations, or migrations, or speciation and migration, cycles, and what not). The niche elephant in the room of that speciation dominated narrative. Not intended, yet, as the most commonly perceivable graphic representation, without needing to know its projection induced missing information, it might be reinforcing the hindsight solo branch terminating on the “you are here” node: the pinnacle of evolution. And when stuck in one line of branches succeeding, nothing will prevent the preconception to keep its narrative on top of the rest of the tree story.

I do find it refreshing that I can walk back into that part of past knowledge and finally verbalize what has been subconsciously nagging me these past years. I would not know to make such a hypothesis about why does the ancient narrative derived conception keeps permeating our societies despite the theory of evolution shown in that branching tree. But if we do not get concerned with possible audience having such preconception individually, which is still a compatible misconception, nothing prevents someone from only looking at one branch, as all they need to know. Being of that branch.

I hope I did not make my previous discussion partners, from that branch of science, feel I have not represented their science very well. I find many analogies still standing about how we think we know chess, or restrict our tools of presentation of it. We are a very adaptive species, I mean producing individuals with such skill, perhaps. I think generalist behavior has been a long discovered or used strategy regarding unknown environment changes. We may well keep adapting our views to the tools we are using, and not even notice it. It becomes obvious (even if it might not be). It has been a while since we have been shaping the environment ourselves. That the concept of adaptation is becoming, how can I say.. Like the chess player strenght problem, looked from pool variable based competitive rating systems, that can only look at the paring IDs, and the game outcomes as source of infortmation, making it a moving measure system (first), i.e. what is being intended as individual "strengh" might be changing with respect to the board information if there was such external (to the rating system limited input) measures, while the rating would still be relative to how the population as a whole would have changed there too. But if that is all we care about. well, no problem. but I am not sure that people are really thinking about ratings as such bootstrapped measure. It is my understanding. that the slip awareness is a ship that has passed for many.

We are becoming experts of something floating and possibly shrinking. by some occams razor assumptoni applied to our estimation of what we know or don't, being convering or already certiude frozen of we already know it all.

in order words. the assumption being under hood reinforced repeadly, (sometimes with eagerness), is that what we don't know, we don't need to be concerned or even ask about it, it will come as a surprise and we will deal with it then. Could we not, allow some explicit model element in our set of questions, leaving some room for data and theory about that. Where we do know, and how much to we know about that. Can we include uncertainty all the way to ignorance in all our thinking. Une petite gêne in our pretentions of knowledge or expertise. that we might ask what is it exaclty that we are experts about. and then for the learners, to know that they might have their own understanding of what they know and what they might not know (obviously one is not going to know what they don't know, but maybe they would have some rational purpose in having that information availlable.

I might not have ever understood the specifics of Occams Razor modelling principle.. beyond that if we have a set of possibilities, and even if we need to include them all, there might be some objective or convention ordering them by simplicity, and then in a plan of modeling (or theory, same thing, different domain scale perhaps), we would start building hypothesis of the data explaining model from the simpler, until we, what get best fit, or contradiction still existing in some of the data? well. we know we are using Occams using from within.. so I am not really asking about that.. am I?

how I diverge.. ..

did I delete some previous iteration, that i did not rephrase already there. TODO: find dumped text files around 240508. with backlink search keywords (top post).

I would like to improve the articulation of my above knee jerk from accumulated hunches never made self-aware together.

so what is biology, what is chess analogy poppiing up out of nowhere while depositting the thoughts real time. (the price of that is ugly, and missing chunks, I delegated to some unreliable procedural sub-process.. all my registrers being flooded with thoughts for the depths ... I wish I was to cognitive types in one.. or enough stamina to overwork around one through perseverant exhausting fixing.. but that ship has sailed long ago. not sustainable then.. and impossible now.. it does not take a week for going back down and needing active recovery derailing all previous sustainable plans.. it is worth it at times. but I need to plan around.. and I am not very good at that.. time flow is very elastic. kind of competing for mental acuity with other attention demanding tasks. if we ever have a time keeping perception, internal.. I am not sure. our dark 24/24 experiment sleep cycles are not really 25 hours..

but there is that clock.. we have hormones cycling.. but it seems evolution (of the selective type I would assume), has us needing the sunlight reset. Then I asked not long ago, thinking of this. What about other mammals and beyond. we do share that same niche characteristics (albeit a lot of other reproducible time pattern of non-life also exist, that might them selves be of niche patterning pressure, lighting degree through the day.. I know that on the cellular level, there are many possible cycling patterns, anyway, and then between cell type at the organism physiology level, I should know of some of them if not completely lost in memory, retrieval is one thing, but not having the thing to retrieve is my uncertainty... long-term memory mysteries.

it may not be sleep cycle, but biological cycles can exist in superposition in all biological cycles on a cell or many cell types organisms.

some are not even allways expressed.. Cells maintaining compartments at certain concentrations, where if never used, might never expressing their characteristic times scales (production, recruitment, re-release, reuptake, decay, or other cell processes affecting the concentration, or amount of molecular signals, to restrict to something I seem to remember, kind of a scheme.. neurotransmitters, metabolites, pre-metabolites, stress reflex molecular compartment, that last one is a bit uncertain..

but for those cycles having some relation to the lighting signal. how do they drift if the signal is cutoff for enough day cycles.

all I know is human sleep cycle, when without external signal. was estimated to 25h (is that fluctuating vertically in one individual, or horizontally diverse across individuals). I would take that me not rememberig that details meaning that it might be not needing as it might be very reprocible in both angles of statistical variation potential.

this might have been a fake divergence.. or a way to keep on focus in spite of going tangent..

I am reminiscence verbally some of my lingering learned things of the past, yes.. But somehow I have this "ambient" slant that also includes some chessy concerns.. That problem of the relation between observables, overserved and theory? that occams' razor involves it own level of preconceptions rigging the meaning of simple to be itself dependent on assumptions about knowledge?

I don,t know. I think I was still not just testing memory. but still trying to talk to some audience with chess things lurking.

hmm. the dependence of knowledge on experimental conditions, and that one might has to ask a question before such knowledge of dependency might even be accessible . I think all of that.. I feel like chess, is a control problem for so many things..

and that is not me aiming for that. it just emerges.. result of lateral stimulation spreading over general stimulation?

no clue.. but I promise. this is not planned. it is not me trying to see how coudl that thing be viewed under that set of goggles. I have those hard wired now.. so it might be part of my whole mind trying its best.. given the stimuli. and I work be web of associations as questions. And I have learned to filter those, only keep the ones that say, well here is something I can't make sense of yet. all the way, to well, that thing keeps annoying my dissonance detector,.. for sure it might be my own internal model of understanding that makes the dissonance. but win win. listening to that, means progress one way or anohter. not listening to that. has been deleterious to my health in the past actually. And to my progress for sure. It took me a Ph.D. full control of my research from question to result to better questoins, to get some external measure of how I should adjust or give more credence to intuition idea well.

ok. did i keep my thoughts visibel about the temporal bias of complexity notion for the life foresight problem?

that this might be the more rational and speciation tree compatible, missing information complementary or supplementation conception that life might be exploring more of the universe complexity of which it is now participating.

All the web interactions that continue to exist at a given time, creating new niches by being new themselves, free valency potential niches of interactions, creating new adherence to exploring new life instances biophysiophysicochemical IDs that would keep going there without even having to replace that another "species" Id. Biomass is not what I am talking about. But a healthy sustainable population in some niche if the niches is itself sustained.. somewhere it is about dirts, rocks, sunlight and energy global whereabouts. but as life explores. it creates more information containing things (niche?).

so. that might still be about chess. and historical accumulation of long lines high level swarm tested hypotheses, with outcome odds estimation, somehow being kept written and then kept as binary or mysterious co-domain evalution set. So we can get partial examples of past structuring attemps. but I still don,t have much clue to form some hypothesis of what is opening theory exactly. can I enumerate that data, if I could have it all? i mean all the things meant by all the people invoking lot of opening theory there, or the openjing theory say. etc...

would i be disrespectful if I said, there is not much of a concern beyond individual repertoire, for structuring concerns? that as long as it seems to make sense in own win rate statistics, the fast accepting of opening theory says do that.. works enough.. and who cares if there is other data, that might say, well that might also be playable. and your win ratio might not have been about that restriction you threw your hopes on. it might just be playable. and it is your play from there that you might attribute your rating trajectory to .. it might just have been that it did not prevent you from controlling or deploying or leanring deeper in the game.

proof by one data point, is not really a scientific progress method. yet, because chess is first a performance art selectiing for individual growth, and we only have one own sensory experience, and limited life time, we can't be assuming that our method or our conscious restriction in exploration are the only way to read the same conseqeunces. the only thing shown is that this restriction and your chess set of skills gathered so far has allowed going there.

same thing for anecdotal recipes that worked from the very visble champions, in some way, same thing for every non-peer reviewed while not yet published, that gather truth momementum possibly beyond the authors intent, if even concerned about that.

I might just be don quichotting all of this.. ok. reread. maybe niche to species question remaining. that I am saying it is missing from the branching tree projection or slice, does not mean it is itself complete, but that it is a missing notion. It might have to be further differentiated conceptually. I guess one has to apply that bloody occam things at some may level of string based communication... (maybe it is also for all our concious thoughts).