Darwinism is based on a single principle: similar bio structure = same origin. Darwinian *predictions* are confirmed as such: close Darwinian origin = similar function. It hijacks a cyclical thought that similar structures *may* have similar function. No advancement in science.
Example: evol first principles on Weinstein’s podcast. He had an *amazing breakthrough* when he noticed wild rats have different functions that lab rats. That speaks volumes on *similarity comparison* based on function. Same cyclical thought.
Pythagorean “evolution”: all physical numbers are multiplications of number 1. 2 = 1 x 2 3 = 1 x 3 etc. Every mathematician could argue that the only reason they managed to solve any problem was due to “Pythagorean evolution” that gave us the taxonomy of natural numbers.
Let’s say you live in a game simulation. You know that similar guns will have a similar impact (physical laws). Similar players behave similarly & all survived players adapted to the game. Like Aristotle or Cicero would have noticed. No need to assume Darwinism to win the game.
– Alexander the Great: my teacher, we need to create a new sarisa, a long spear about 4–6 metres in length. This will give us an evolutionary advantage to the tribal competition against the Persians, as adaptive Darwinian selection would indicate. – Aristotle: wtf Alex?
Hate to break the news, but the idea of system + emergent properties comes from Aristotle. Interestingly enough, even Jesus defined the ecclesia as a system with emergent properties.
The greeks literally invented the concept of axioms. “Believing” in the minimum number of necessary unproven principles. The Darwinian “Origins” is not a necessary principle for deducting inferences from resemblance. Independent of Gödel (incompleteness)
The main problem is this. Most evolutionary vendors are – to put it lightly – challenged in the domain of deductive reasoning. Here I do *NOT* refute the theory of Origins of Darwin. I claim that it is ridiculously unnecessary to most cases that it is applied.
Imagine a “perfect AI”. Does it need Darwinian hypothesis to draw taxonomic inferences on species? It just needs data from structures / functions / environment. Raw data could come from a simulation (with no Darwinian Origin). Inferences can be made in the dark (deep learning).
François Benoux wisdom 