And “forces” should be called “interactions”!
I have been trying to work that out (James didn’t leave much concerning what word to use in its place other than “migrate” - explicative but not entirely appropriate in common use). And the question has led to some complex and disturbing thoughts (besides realizing the limits of my vocabulary).
I am not sure that an actual change of the word is really needed, but just for fun if we wanted to get pedantically accurate - it gets challenging, complex, and tideous. I went through a number of potential substitute words and almost settled on “affect” but even though surreptitiously applicable in some uses - inappropriate in others.
Our languages in the West are starting to disturb me. It seems that in many cases we have a language that implies the exact opposite of what is really going on - backwards and upside-down - like the Darwin issue (I have to wonder if that was intentional - maybe we really should learn to write from right to left and bottom to top - and maybe Americans really are driving on the right side of the road — nah).
The first problem I faced was that the word “force” is used in both a dynamic and a static situation - where it implies that something is getting moved (affected) and also when nothing moved (feckless). When pushing your car you say that you are “applying force” but you also say that when pushing against a locked door - in one case there is affect but in the other - no visible affect (although on that ultra-minuscule scale particles are getting crowded closer together). And that led me to think of the word “push” in place of “force” would be appropriate - but not quite.
Pushing is the act of increasing the affectance (or energy) between particles in a material. The particles keep “trying” to balance out that extra affectance by migrating away from each other (again “trying” meaning to inherently behave such as to bring that effect). But what about decreasing the affectance between them?
If there is a word for push there has to be a word for pull - but guess what - according to the ontology absolutely nothing ever actually pulls anything anywhere ever - pulling is even more substantially nonexistent than force. When we pull, we do one of two things - we “grab” and effectively push from the other side or we (in the case of being chemically stuck or bonded to a surface) we inspire a migration of the particles toward us by decreasing the affectance between the particles - making them “try” to migrate back together. But what is an appropriate word for that?
I haven’t worked that out yet. 
I think what it amounts to is either increasing the affectance between objects (what we would normally think of as the attempt to decrease the proximity of objects - pushing away) - or decrease the affectance between them (increase that proximity - pulling closer). The behavior of the Earth an Moon reflect that as a balance - the momentum of the Moon “tries” to decrease the affectance (flying away) while simultaneously the gravity from both is “trying” to increase the affectance (pulling closer) - yielding the anentropic state of a stable orbit - “pushing” and “pulling” - but - not really. 
“I am going to cause a decrease imbalance of affectance between me and my wife” 
- just doesn’t sound right - because it means that I am going to increase the attraction (or migration) between us.
I have found a text passage on the subject of “forces” in the e-book offered by Mithus:
These are, of course, daring theses.
That never stopped James - if he thought he knew the logic behind his assertions (and usually proved that he did) he would have debated God himself. That is one of the things that caught my attention - seriously confident and willing to back it up (much like Mr Trump in that way). James mostly talked about what is necessarily true - not merely probably true.
Having read through his reasoning - especially concerning his ontology - I have to accept nearly everything he asserted (other than things he admitted to be only his guessing from a distance). He had valid logic behind everything and stated that the very first thing you must do is to “Define your words” 
In various places he explains the exact details concerning why what he asserts must be true and that what he claims is never in conflict with what science has observed - only in the way they interpret it. You end up being able to strongly sense the difference between when you just think you are right and when you know that you absolutely have to be right.
And I can tell you that after a while of working through it - that confidence rubs off on you - it changes you inside.
Let’s talk about science as you understand it though. What is your take on the dynamics of the gluonic shifts, do you favour a mosaic or a system of suspension?
In mathematics this would be comparable with operations like the different mirroring (at point, straight line) and rotations combined with displacements. And because one can never isolate gluons, so one can never put them under a microscope, then the suspicion comes that these gluons do not exist as objects, just as little as there are reflections as objects.
However, I think I know what you are getting at. You want to point out that science has come to its end with physics and therefore we have to depend on other aids if we still want to recognize something in addition. I can agree with that for the most part. But how will one be capable of making an ojective statement if nobody accepts it objectively? This is only possible by falling back on old recipes: God/gods, religion, theology, also philosophy (which would then experience a great rebirth). But how do you want to explain it to the mass of people, if they don’t want to know anything about astrology and the like? That works only about coercion. And coercion is what I reject.
Crikey!
I mention the East, and you think I’m trying to destroy the West? I weren’t making any comparisons here.
I’m not Chinese… I don’t give that much of an f about this… I was just interested and intrigued by the suggestion I came across and the reason behind the reasoning why it is said to be so.
This was about history, not politics, and I’m not left-leaning in my politics in any way shape or form. You have presumed far too much here, so please stand corrected.
Darwin is way ahead of you.
I did not say that you are “Chinese”, “left-leaning” and want “to destroy the West”, because I know that you are not Chinese, not left-leaning and do not want to destroy the West. I was referring to my own post, the last one, in which your previous post is still included. It would have been better to take your post out before. Sorry, Mags. I was referring to leftists / comunists, not to you.
It’s always been the source of great amazment how clowns like you soak up exactly the right amount of propoganda to completely undermine your own interests and to maximise your own oppression.
There are no reds under the beds. There is only the corporate interests that promote this rather idiotic myth.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Sounds like a conspiracy theory.
Maybe there are no corporate ideologues in your attic?
Fair enough… 
Actually what Id be getting at is that science has not yet learned to think. I trust you’ve read my post on refuting the law of identity, in the thread you recently visited.
Leave astrology out of it, it is just an art of power, it has little to offer scientific thought. Governments and banks use it, not scientists. Leave religion out of it too.
But what is this idea that the masses should be wooed? That has never been the case - science has always operated best far away from the masses. Im sure you’re not ignorant of the lives of Archimedes, Newton or Galileo. Nor of the fact that Einstein, after he became famous, did not produce much of consequence. Science is a matter of unearthing subtleties through extreme patience and persistence, something for which the masses are entirely unfit.
Your statement that the world will forever, at least until its destruction, be under the dominion of science, and that this science is of western origin, is true. There are elements of nonwestern thought that can be applied to science in order to enable it to deal with certain contradictions that have come to light early in the 20th century, but these elements can also be derived simply from clear thought.
The scientific matter before us now is that of 4 dimensional engineering, as premonitioned by the phenomena of superposition and entanglement. Supposedly various companies and governments are in possession of a quantum computer - but I expect there to be very interesting “bugs” coming into play, which will point to our inefficiency at 4d architecture, because we do not yet understand precisely how the future influences the present as much as the past does; we do not know how to approach systems in their own terms.
Perhaps this science is actually quite well established in secret. Much new science is established in secret. And much of it is kept, partly for very good reasons, away from the masses.
It’s plain fact.
You are a dupe.
Animals have an environment, humans have a world.
Animals adapt to the environment, humans do the opposite.
Humans have bare skin, walk upright on two legs, have graceful hands with a thumb that they can put in an opposition position to the other fingers (humans can i.e. throw, they are throwers; they can use their hands like tools and use them to make other tools, first of all throwing tools, later vaccines and nanobots), they have brains so complex that they could conquer and have conquered the whole world with their technology, they made themselves gods.
In nature, a naked skin, the bipedalism, the upright walk, the graceful hands and, above all, the very complex brain are of no use to humans at all - on the contrary: all these cultural advantages are only disadvantages in nature. Humans are not capable of surviving in a purely natural way; they can survive only thanks to their culture, which is based on their non-natural resp. anti-natural features.
Human culture is a culture opposed to nature. It is based on distanciation, not on adaptation.
In rudiments, a little human resemblance can be detectable in some apes (i.e. chimpanzees, bonobos). But you only have to look at these apes and observe them for a longer time to realize that they are very far away from humans.
How is any of this attending to the thread question?
If the relevance between the correspondence between the environmental evolution of the environment to the world can be reduced AND the sensory evolution of the entire gap between the corresponding species can be induced , then the patterns of similarity may suggest such conclusion.
But then, what is missing is the pivotally missing inflective - reflective symbolic equivolance as in a micro elemental sequence e of symbols, connecting pictures as ideograms.
Without it it is still a hypothesis.
Although on a probable scale, the preponderence to almost absolute certainty appears overwhelmingly convincing to assert absolute truth of the selection principle.
Note: for those who can not recall the substantially formed content of arguing, the re-view becomes an useless test of credibility.
Further associations missed cannot be induced except literally reassign a partially abandoned criteria for maintaining it’s hypothetical.
So an infinitely reduced constant such ‘proof’ appears as an invincible logical certainty.
Except on the level as the minimal approach to certainty becomes appearently incalculable.
Without admitting that Kammefer was right, or wrong, one can discern the sad outcome he was compelled to, just by following the retro-logic of political expedience that prefigured the outcome.
Lamarkism may be totally off kilter here, nevertheless, the vein of disagreement may still subsist.
How does an ape go from a zoo to The TETRAMEGATRON-TETRAGRAMMATON
It won’t look back.
Apes Might Know That You Don’t Know What They Know
“The latest volley in a decades-long debate about apes’ theory of mind involved one scientist dressing up as King Kong and stealing from his colleague.”
Undetermined source
Mega-tetra-tron - - - to -
Mega-ton- don’t look back
PENTAGRAM
Gibberish
Nah. Your word salad does not change anything.
The principle remains regardless. Shit that survives propogates that which does not fails. Progress therefore inevitably means more fitness.
This princple can be shown to work from bacteria in petri dishes, to the evolution of all species on the plant and in artificial systems and even in the architechture of the brain.
Yes. He has no idea about genetics, biology and evolution, and now it turns out consequently that he has no idea about economics and orporate interests either, but only interests in conspiracy theories.
Absolutely right.
And that means: Darwins selection principle is false.
Nature does not select! Humans select!