annnnoid
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2010
- Messages
- 1,703
…so the fact that we exist in a universe is trivial. I think that statement speaks for itself!
Creationist argument about DNA and information
- Thread starter barehl
- Start date
…so the fact that we exist in a universe is trivial. I think that statement speaks for itself!
annnnoid
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2010
- Messages
- 1,703
Really! This here is a science forum...perhaps you could present a couple of these 'conceivable ways' that laws of nature could be 'set' (whatever that means)...along with whatever-a-universe-is that can accommodate them.
I would suggest that your claims have gone far beyond anything that could be described by the word 'absurd'...but I'll leave that for you to discover on your own.
(my bold, last sentence)
As a 19th century ISF member may have written, balderdash and poppycock!
annnnoid, I recommend you read up on GR and QM, especially their foundations (HINT: is 'spacetime' compatible?)
That's enough to
In a very specific, and carefully defined, sense. Or not (look up Planck scale).
Here, in the SMMT section of the ISF, we do not seek to "explain WHY", except perhaps in terms of models whose scope is broader than either GR or QM, say. The ISF section where WHY is discussed is thataway ->
Straw of FALLACY! Projection!!
What's the term for confusing a description/explanation/model/whatever of something with the "something" itself?
annnnoid, you seem to often trip up over something you may find better understood by some results from linguistics. Most of the time, here in the SMMT section, we know very well what the distinction between our models etc and the things observed. But, for convenience/shorthand/whatever, that distinction is somewhat conflated, or elided over.
In popsci, you see this happening all the time, "black holes feed" for example, or "bacteria compete", and sometimes this causes significant misunderstanding ... you may even be able to come up with excellent examples, of anthropomorphizingWPhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism say.
Eat-to-compete a nice day!
One obvious one: there could be an infinite number of universes, each with their own variations on physical laws - say where the universal gravitational constant was slightly different.
In one universe the weak nuclear force could be slightly weaker, and maybe only 50 elements would be stable.
Another alternative is that there is only one universe and the properties are such that it is the way it is.
Alternatively: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangi_and_Papa
There are plenty, but they all have some properties that mean that there are laws of nature within any conceiveable universe.
Here's something for you to ponder, annnnoid:
Take a model, concerning gravity say, and ask this: are there different ways to formulate that model? If so, which one - in annnnoid_philosophy - is the "real" l.o.n? From the perspective of science, as long as the different formulations can be shown to be logically equivalent, it is irrelevant (at a practical level perhaps not; ease of doing calculations matters a great deal!)
If, in a particular domain, two otherwise radically different models produce indistinguishable predictions/explanations (at a practical level), does it matter which you use? In annnnoid_philosophy, how do you distinguish between them? And how do you decide that the "true" l.o.n. is not radically different again?
I know you've written many posts, seeking to convey your understanding of what is, to you, a deep and meaningful idea; however, I think it's clear - from the many different responses you've received - that your attempts to communicate your idea(s) have failed.
Perhaps consider approaching this in a different way?
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
No, no, annnnoid is completely correct- we should all just grow some "conjones" and admit with him that there is no spoon.
ETA- as Donn says here, "Truly, we are marvellous funny machines to parse such dirty perplexity; only to labyrinth the results."
Last edited:
Eureka! I have it!
Ceci n'est pas une pipe (this source - "Gottlob Frege- Logic and Language – HCJ YEAR 2 SEMESTER 2 SEMINAR 1" - may be particularly apt).
But I think they may have made a mistake; you see, in the "real" universe (not ours, of course), the gnitniap is entitled "Ceci n'est pas une dionnnna"
I'm going to come back to this, because I really don't get it, annnnoid.
OF COURSE there's a relationship!
Likely hundreds of thousands of relationships, one of which is this text string:
"There either IS a relationship (just for example) between what we call the Fibonacci mathematics and what occurs in this picture, or there is not."
Surely a far more relevant question might be "what sorts of relationships are there?" or "why is any such relationship relevant?"
I really, REALLY don't understand why you write this (and similar) so often.
You see, not only have I, but dozens of other ISF members have pointed out that it's at best a misunderstanding of what we've written. Somehow you seem to have jumped through many chains of logic (and implications), without carefully examining them (or even the original premises).
So, why not sit down, and carefully - very carefully - describe the particular class of "relationships" which you consider to be important to your idea? Stick with "the Fibonacci mathematics" - which you might consider defining - "this picture", and "what occurs in", at least for now.
Have an icepipe day!
OF COURSE there's a relationship!
Likely hundreds of thousands of relationships, one of which is this text string:
"There either IS a relationship (just for example) between what we call the Fibonacci mathematics and what occurs in this picture, or there is not."
Surely a far more relevant question might be "what sorts of relationships are there?" or "why is any such relationship relevant?"
This sort of thing seems quite common in your posts, annnnoid.
I really, REALLY don't understand why you write this (and similar) so often.
You see, not only have I, but dozens of other ISF members have pointed out that it's at best a misunderstanding of what we've written. Somehow you seem to have jumped through many chains of logic (and implications), without carefully examining them (or even the original premises).
So, why not sit down, and carefully - very carefully - describe the particular class of "relationships" which you consider to be important to your idea? Stick with "the Fibonacci mathematics" - which you might consider defining - "this picture", and "what occurs in", at least for now.
Have an ice
Jodie
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 7, 2012
- Messages
- 6,231
We do have these circumstances in certain places on earth yet we don't see abiogenesis occurring there. Another possibility is the bias that we are expecting an exact duplication of the process that led to US. If life is a given in this universe, rather than the exception, then there should be some evidence of other processes that lead to similar results. Unless, of course, we fail to recognize it since it isn't a duplication of our own form of life.
Very good points. If abiogenesis isn't extremely unlikely, why don't we find it?
Last edited:
As far as I know, we don't have any environment that is suitable for life that doesn't have some form of life already there, scavenging the resources. Abiogenisis would be unlikely where something that is already thete is able to get the jump on the pre-life.
I've heard this before and I've accepted it as a good explanation. But now I'm wondering why it should be so, that existing life forms prevent new life from arising. I assume someone has studied this in a bit more depth?
For example, we already know that different species can occupy closely related niches, that one species is incapable (maybe that's too strong?) of completely dominating the energy flow - a 100% resource absorber. We also know that species themselves offer an environment for exploitation (lovely little soup inside of cells). If existing life prevents abiogenesis, that seems to imply something about how abiogenesis could have happened - maybe something very specific. And we also know that some complex organic molecules survive without being "eaten" - we mine oil and coal.
In any case, I wonder how much of the "not finding it" is from it not being around, or because we either aren't looking or don't really know what to look for. One possible example that comes to mind is prions. Maybe that's abiogenesis in action?
ETA: It's probably time for me to read a book to better grasp the issues.
Last edited:
RussDill
Philosopher
Abiogenesis had arguably happened many times on this planet and has been made much more common due to the presence of life. Viruses and prions would be two examples of replicating life forms.
But as far as cellular life arising in an oxygenated environment? I think not.
But as far as cellular life arising in an oxygenated environment? I think not.
Any particular reason why not?
If it's a complex story I'll accept that I asked an unfair question there, but maybe there's a straightforward reason?
RussDill
Philosopher
Oxygen will have a pretty negative effect on most prebiotic molecules and forms of life. It's a really nasty molecule.
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obligate_anaerobe
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event
Jodie
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 7, 2012
- Messages
- 6,231
There are a few places, one being in Antartica. They aren't sure whether the bacteria falls into this body of water or if they live there, at any rate, if they originate in the water they can't figure out what they are eating.
Lukraak_Sisser
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 6,049
Yet, that water contains bacteria, which as far as I know, when studied are part of the tree of life on earth.
Hence, even the liquid water in Antarctica, one of the most isolated places on earth, has things eating any component that might form life.
Not to mention that the temperature and conditions in Antarctica are quite improbable as a place for abiogenesis. It has low temperature, extremely low diffusion rates for pre-organic molecules and extremely low energy input to drive reactions.
Deep underground would be far more likely, as the high pressure and temperature there would aid reaction speed, but even there we have found bacteria. And given that life is so desperately short of Carbon and Nitrogen that it has developed methods to strip both from inert gasses in the air, what do you suppose would happen with (proto-) organic molecules that get encountered?
Thanks. I don't know that those address abiogenesis directly, but assuming O2 stops/prevents abiogenesis, we'd expect to see it happening up until the Great Oxygen Event (GOE) and afterwards in conditions where obligate anaerobes exist now. Unless life only arose once or a few times, which I also find strange.
But if the GOE is the killer of more recent abiogenesis, then it at least helps narrow down the reactions allowed for abiogenesis to occur - with oxygen an unwelcome visitor.
Oxygen is a killer, but there are anaerobic environments; maybe abiogenesis has happened in one of those? But even there, there are hungry bacteria and archaea (maybe even some eukaryotes?).
Here's another possibility: abiogenesis has happened, more than once, here on Earth. And in at least one 'other' time (other than that which ended up as us), the biochemistry is not RNA/DNA-based, and that form of (carbon-based) life is still with us today.
I think there's been some work done on this 'shadow life' ideaWP; if such lifeforms were tiny, and thinly dispersed (and in only a small number of difficult-to-study environments), they may be rather hard to find.
One more: maybe there were many independent abiogenesis events, shortly after the LHB period ended. Many of the early, independent lifeforms died out, and some ended up 'merging' with others. From ~4 billion years later, it looks like a single event, even though it wasn't.
Here's another possibility: abiogenesis has happened, more than once, here on Earth. And in at least one 'other' time (other than that which ended up as us), the biochemistry is not RNA/DNA-based, and that form of (carbon-based) life is still with us today.
I think there's been some work done on this 'shadow life' ideaWP; if such lifeforms were tiny, and thinly dispersed (and in only a small number of difficult-to-study environments), they may be rather hard to find.
One more: maybe there were many independent abiogenesis events, shortly after the LHB period ended. Many of the early, independent lifeforms died out, and some ended up 'merging' with others. From ~4 billion years later, it looks like a single event, even though it wasn't.