Am I the only one here who finds this sort of undergraduate, 3am, pot-fuelled solipsistic, shadows-on-the-walls-of-the-cave intellectual meandering both boring and pointless?
How impressively condescending of you!
…is it worth pointing out that it is you folks who never stop equivocating between “the laws of physics exist” ("we
discover them"..."
everything follows them")...and “…nope, they don’t”.
Do they…or do they not…exist?
For those who are silly enough to attempt an answer…the correct response is: We do not know…but it sure freakin looks like they do! The INDISPUTABLE facts that A)…we can create these laws and B)…it very very very convincingly looks like everything follows them…
…are, in themselves, evidence in support of some kind of conclusion (why do they constitute such evidence…and how substantive is the argument?). So far, we do not (empirically) know what that conclusion may actually be. If it can be empirically established that something equivalent to the ‘laws of physics’ are actually the cause of everything that is…how would that discovery rate in the history of science?
…would (just for example) the individual who made the discovery be eligible for a Nobel prize? If you were to place a bet...what do you think the odds would be of this discovery actually winning a Nobel prize (personally...I'd wager my entire past, present, future, and my collection of jelly beans)?
:
...this is hilarious… coming, as it does, from someone who emphatically insists that mathematics / logic are manifest in the fundamental nature of the universe. That there IS some variety of 'thing' that you call 'number' that actually does exist in nature (this despite the indisputable fact that no one anywhere anyhow [including you] has ever explicitly adjudicated such a thing).
The fact that I happen to agree with this variety of conclusion does not mitigate the indisputable fact that it neither has nor can be empirically confirmed in any way shape or form what-so-ever. Thus it is categorically impossible to unconditionally assert it as you do.
I don't find it boring or pointless, just tangential to the discussion. By waving away the essential premises, there's not much left to talk about. It's like informing me, in a conversation about racially motivated violence, that there is no biological basis for race. Um, OK, so? There goes the bathwater, and there goes the baby too.
Except that I’m not waving away the essential premise, I’m asking what it is. The (unanswerable) questions merely illustrate the dimensions of our ignorance. What we have…is reasonably convincing circumstantial evidence that A)…the ‘stuff’ of everything is information and B)…this ‘information’ proceeds according to ‘the laws of physics’ that C)…are somehow discovered [NOT created] by something we call intelligence that is manifest through something we call consciousness. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that there is some kind of explicit and fundamental relationship between these phenomena (information, laws of physics, intelligence, consciousness).
…as Wittgenstein said…”there is that which we must pass over in silence.” Perhaps the ‘truth’ of information is actually such a thing.
…and while I’ve got Wittgenstein in my corner…this one is always good for a laugh:
“Man has to awaken to wonder - and so perhaps do peoples. Science is a way of sending him to sleep again.”
...blasphemer!
@annoid.
Since single nucleotides contain the information to make every possible known (and currently unknown) ribozyme, how then is that information accessed to decide what ribozyme to create when you string them together randomly?
Because right now all experiments seem to suggest there IS no pattern, and therefore they do NOT contain actual information. You claim otherwise. What experimental evidence do you have?
…oooh, a trick question. Perhaps you should review what you write before you post it. You asked if nucleotides contain information.
I replied yes.
Sorry…claiming that a nucleotide has no information is not even stupid. I could explain why this is blindingly obvious but it would only make you look rather foolish. Just take a quick glance at how that (or any molecule) is described / represented…and tell me again how there is no information there.
Here’s a hint: If there is no information…then it could not be described.
You’re making what I call the Massimo-mistake. IOW…your ideological zeal is getting the better of you.
!
!
What on Earth LOL.
