A practising Engineer explains over unity or free energy misconceptions

steveB · Jan 30, 2015

Ratchit said:
That article gives examples of simple objects forming pattern and concludes that it is evolution in motion. I could just as well say that rubber bands tangling up are a lower state of order. The ruts come from the tires pushing the gravel into a pile until it becomes packed enough for the vehicle to drive over. A different weight vehicle or different type of gravel will change the size of the ruts. The wind piles the snow or sand up into a pile until the lee side is sheltered enough so that the wind cannot move it. Further away from the pile the shelter diminishes and the wind can pile up the snow to make another ridge. All these examples are a set of preconditions that are set up to happen. In order for life to form or change radically, countless changes have to occur orderly and correctly against insurmountable odds. It is inconceivable that is going to happen.

Ratch

The rubber bands are a higher state of order and a higher state of energy. The ruts are a state of higher order coming from less order, and random energy excitation. Of course you reject these even though they are examples you asked for. You reject them because they prove you are wrong. You claim that the countless changes needed involve insurmountable odds, but you have no proof of these. Research by scientist have shown much more elaborate mechanisms on the molecular scale. They have shown that processes that seem unlikely or involving insurmoutable odds are actually quite probable, when many reactions are taking place. It's analogous to parallel processing, and we see the example of the screws and bolts connecting themselvs, which would seem very unlikely, yet there it is happening right in front of you.

Basically, you offer zero proof of any of your statements. They are claims without basis.

Ratchit · Jan 30, 2015

steveB said:
Your first sentence is a statement without proof. You will never know if they are tractible unless you try. Science has penetrated deeply into both quesitons. They are not intractible problems so far, but are difficult problems to fully resolve in every detail. We are in a process or "tracking" both problems, with impressive results in both areas. The only question is how far into the process can we go. Can we ever resolve the more difficult and most fundamental questions in these areas.

Intractable does not mean impossible. It means very difficult. I don't know of any progress science has actually made on creating the universe or creating life. The first is too big, and the second is too hard to do.

The reason why I consider the origin of life problem to be easier is that it potentially can be answered with physics and chemistry laws that are already known. Scientists must discover the mechanisms and processes involved, and then provide scientific proof of them. Of course it is possible that the origin of life might involve some, as yet, undiscovered law of nature, and if so, that would need to be uncovered first. But, either way, the difficult problem seems to me, to be solvable one. I think it will take centuries or even millenia to work out the details, but it seems feasible to me that this could happen. Of course, as I said, this is a faith I have, and not a certain knowledge. It is an opinion.

Your philosophy seems to be that given enough time, anything can be done. I have no indication that is true. I think that some things are too big for science to do.

The issue with the origin of the universe is a bit different. We perhaps have made equal or even better strides in this area to get close to understanding the laws and working those laws backwards into an understanding of the origin of the universe. But, there is still a gap in our understanding of merging gravity and quantum field theory. The full physics is not worked out, and this looks like a difficult problem. I expect progress will be made in the theory, but evenally any theory is going to run up against a fundamental issue or question. Why are the laws we discover of that particular form and why do thesee laws have to exist at all. Basically, there is a fundamental difference in the origin of life and the origin of the universe. However, there is one thing related to life which throws a wrench into my thinking, and that is the conscious mind. We seem to have no way to quantify what it is and why it exists. Still, I think the collective work of conscious humans will crack the mystery of the origin of life. I think is will work out even better laws of physics and describe the universe all the way back to it's very birth. But, I dont think it will necessarily be able to answer why the universe must exist.

I don't know if understanding all the laws is enough. So far, I don't think anyone can make a nourshing food fit for human consumption out of raw materials that were not once plant or animal. Yet our knowledge of food and human nutrition is vast. Would not that be a better place to start?

Ratch

Ratchit · Jan 30, 2015

steveB said:
The rubber bands are a higher state of order and a higher state of energy. The ruts are a state of higher order coming from less order, and random energy excitation.

Who is to say whether tangled or straight means a lower or higher orderliness? If they are in a higher energy state, it means they are stretched. The energy to stretch them came from they being shaken. What state do they go from there?

Of course you reject these even though they are examples you asked for. You reject them because they prove you are wrong.

No, they are not the examples I asked for. They are simple events that are predetermined to happen. They don't lead to anything significant and are certainly not proof of evolution or the principle of evolution. The same result will happen every time according to the laws of physics. I am looking for something new to occur from random events that won't be easily duplicated. That is what evolution defines itself to be.

You claim that the countless changes needed involve insurmountable odds, but you have no proof of these.

No proof is needed to ascertain that a single cell is a very complicated organism. Therefore, many events have to occur to build a cell. Because an automobile does not build itself from just raw materials, it is an easy to deduce that a cell will not either. And, a cell is more complicated than an automobile.

Research by scientist have shown much more elaborate mechanisms on the molecular scale. They have shown that processes that seem unlikely or involving insurmoutable odds are actually quite probable, when many reactions are taking place. It's analogous to parallel processing, and we see the example of the screws and bolts connecting themselvs, which would seem very unlikely, yet there it is happening right in front of you.

I think you are talking about chemistry. That is a very mature discipline. Chemists know a great deal about concentrations, temperature, filtering, etc. It is all pretty much cut and dried. I don't think anything new comes out of the big chemical plants that the workers do not expect.

Both the bolts and nuts have the same diameter and threads. It is just a matter of time before a bolt lines up with a nut and gets twisted the right direction to turn on. Again, that is predetermined outcome and does not compare to what has to happen to build a cell.

Basically, you offer zero proof of any of your statements. They are claims without basis.

I presented a few examples of the probabilities evolution would have to overcome in order to explain how it works.

Ratch

tcmtech · Jan 30, 2015

Not knowing something now does not mean we wont know it later and only fools would believe that we are at the peak of anything in our knowledge as a whole.

The world around us is a perfect example if you take the knowledge and views of most any scientist or religion going back far enough in time.

The computers and related networks, all created and built on discoveries of science not religion, that we are using now are a perfect example of this. 500 years ago what we do and consider normal now was scientific impossibilities and religious blasphemy to suggest otherwise.

10,000 years ago we would have been seen as gods given our present rates of aging and knowledge of life process how we live and what we do today with what the most educated and learned people of that time understood.

To think we are at the final peak or end of any scientific understandings of how the reality around us works today is stupidity in its own right.

As far as probability goes every single thing around us is proof that a 1 in infinity chance of happening is still sufficient for nature to have something happen or exist. The universe appears to be infinite yet the exact right combinations of atoms and subatomic particles came together somehow to create every single thing and person around us at least once.

As far as events, actions, or combinations of whatever taking place every single particle of everything around us is still on its journey of nature trying every single possible combination of everything yet to come.

Tony Stewart · Jan 30, 2015

I have yet to see any experiment worthy of scrutiny with proof over unity. In every case bad measurement techniques were used and no precision or avoidance of interference in the measurements. Very unscientific.

steveB · Jan 30, 2015

Ratchit said:
No, they are not the examples I asked for. They are simple events that are predetermined to happen. They don't lead to anything significant and are certainly not proof of evolution or the principle of evolution. The same result will happen every time according to the laws of physics. I am looking for something new to occur from random events that won't be easily duplicated. That is what evolution defines itself to be.

What does predetermined mean? Chemistry and phyisics will dictate what will happen. That's no different than what is thought to happen with the origin of life. It's many steps, perhaps even unlikely steps, that lead to a molecule capable of making copies of itself. That's basically it. Yes, those examples above dont' make copies of themselves, but that is not what you asked for. You asked for a process that created higher order from lesser order. Requiring "not predetermined" is a red-herring with no meaning. All processes, once in the right state, are predetermined by physical laws. The natural environment can set up the right conditions randomly, given that there are trillions of planets in the universe with varying conditions on each one.

One can draw an analogy to that guy who traded a phone for a Porche on Craigs list. This can't be done in one step, but with multiple trades, each giving a higher value, he eventually got a Porche. The same kind of thing can happen at the molecular level and the rules at that level are different since quantum mechanical rules apply. Once a molecule comes into existance which can make even crude imperfect copies of itself, then "it's off to the races", because now a competition is possible. Molecules can evolve and survive/die based on how good they are at reporducing accurately and using the molecules in the environment. This is a simplist description but it's this kind of thing that is sought to find the origin of life. It might be simple "predetermined" chemistry once the right conditions exist on some random planet. Even very unlikely events become likely given a billion years with trillions of reaction occurring in parallel. Searching out the possiblity that this might have happened, and discovering the exact mechanisms that would actually work, is a task well suited for the tool of science.

In other words, the basic evolution in the origin of life might very well be what you call "predetermined" or "predestined". That's the whole point. Under the right conditions of energy and chemical components, we already know that amino acids (the building blocks of life) instantly form (another example of order from disorder). The next step is to find what natural "predetermined" steps can lead to a primative molecule (similar to DNA or RNA) capable of reproducing itself.

Ratchit · Jan 30, 2015

steveB said:
What does predetermined mean?

It means the final outcome is known.

Chemistry and phyisics will dictate what will happen. That's no different than what is thought to happen with the origin of life. It's many steps, perhaps even unlikely steps, that lead to a molecule capable of making copies of itself. That's basically it.

In chemistry, many molecules are routinely made concurrently. But so what? To create life, you have to make a cell. That is very unlikely for science to accomplish. Especially from raw materials and no direction.

Yes, those examples above dont' make copies of themselves, but that is not what you asked for. You asked for a process that created higher order from lesser order. Requiring "not predetermined" is a red-herring with no meaning. All processes, once in the right state, are predetermined by physical laws. The natural environment can set up the right conditions randomly, given that there are trillions of planets in the universe with varying conditions on each one.

Only a trillion? It is going to take a lot more that to for everything to fall into place. I asked for a random sequence to illustrate the impossible improbability of everything coming out correct. Predetermined sequences are relatively few, and they don't lead anywhere with respect to forming life.

One can draw an analogy to that guy that traded a phone for a Porche on Craigs list. This can't be done in one step, but with multiple trades, each giving a higher value, he eventually got a Porche. The same kind of thing can happen at the molecular level and the rules at that level are different since quantum mechanical rules apply. Once a molecule comes into existance which can make even crude imperfect copies of itself, then "it's off to the races", because now a competition is possible. Molecules can evolve and survive/die based on how good they are at reporducing accurately and using the molecules in the environment. This is a simplist description but it's this kind of thing that is sought to find the origin of life. It might be simple "predetermined" chemistry once the right conditions exist on some random planet. Even very unlikely events become likely given a billion years with trillions of reaction occurring in parallel. Searching out the possiblity that this might have happened, and discovering the exact mechanisms that would actually work, is a task well suited for the tool of science.

Complicated things eventually become simpler, unless someone directs it to do otherwise. You have never seen anything do otherwise.

In other words, the basic evolution in the origin of life might very well be what you call "predetermined" or "predestined". That's the whole point. Under the right conditions of energy and chemical components, we already know that amino acids (the building blocks of life) instantly form. The next step is to find what natural "predetermined" steps can lead to a primative molecule (similar to DNA or RNA) capable of reproducing itself.

No way. There are just too many steps and too few chances of everything going right. Amino acids form proteins, but not by themselves. DNA and RNA does not replicate itself except in a cell. You have to have a cell first, before you can declare life. We have mass duplication of molecules every since chemistry started. That is not life and is only a small part of what life needs to happen.

Ratch

steveB · Jan 30, 2015

Ratchit said:
No way. There are just too many steps and too few chances of everything going right. Amino acids form proteins, but not by themselves. DNA and RNA does not replicate itself except in a cell. You have to have a cell first, before you can declare life. We have mass duplication of molecules every since chemistry started. That is not life and is only a small part of what life needs to happen.

Your argument amounts to the summary: "You can't imagine it, therefore it is not possible". Science is a tool that can be used to discover things that we could never imagine as possible.

The proof that such an unlikely thing can happen is that it did happen. You attribute the reason to God, while a scientist works under the assumption that God, should he exist, is more subtle than simply waving his wand and making magic on a constant basis. He could do anything, including devising a basic set of laws that require the evolution of a universe and the evolution of life too. And even make a universe that appears self consistant from the inside and hence offer no proof of his existance. The scientist, if he believes in God, is then only discoving the mechanisms and laws that he put in place. If the scientist is not religious or just does not care to mix religion with science, then he just learns what the mechanism is.

This is why we leave God out of science and why we dont draw lines in the sand and say "stop here". History has proved this is the wrong approach to attaining knowledge about nature.

It's amazing to me that you can pretend to know exactly and with 100% certainty how a God might choose to build and run a universe.

cowboybob · Jan 30, 2015

Well said, Steve.

tcmtech · Jan 30, 2015

In chemistry, many molecules are routinely made concurrently. But so what? To create life, you have to make a cell. That is very unlikely for science to accomplish. Especially from raw materials and no direction.

Actually as I understand it working at the literal atomic level where placing one specific atom at a time into a molecule or other such atomic matrix construct is already being done.
For example the worlds smallest video is literally done with stop motion photography of sorts of individual atoms being placed frame by frame.

Given that atomic scale manipulation and its variations developed from nano scale semi conductor development is already possible yes we do have the actual capacity to build a DNA string and larger organic chains atom by atom.
Granted given it is a painstakingly slow process that in itself does not mean that we can not literally build a exact living replica of a simple cell atom by atom.

As talked about here relating to synthetic lifeforms whic hare real living things that were built out of artificially assembled DNA. https://www.ted.com/talks/craig_venter_unveils_synthetic_life?language=en

We may not know the exact reasoning and rules behind the complex atomic and molecular laws that drive life but we now do know enough about their individual parts and how to observe, record and replicate them to build a living organism from nothing more than a pile of basic atomic stock.

So yea we do know how to build living organisms now. Granted they are at the electronics equivalent to a 555 timer blinking a small light bulb right now but they are synthetic lifeforms just the same.

Overclocked · Jan 30, 2015

Ratchit said:
Your above musings sound like fantasy fiction.

Ratch

You are correct in some ways, but SteveB Showed me that others have had the same thought process (which is quite interesting). We could, infact say the same about God(s). God, as an entity and creator could be nothing more than our human minds trying to comprehend the unknown, so we come up with comforting thoughts. By no means is that a bad thing either . Death is a good example. We wish for those that have been good, or who have been suffering to go to a good place, while those who have done evil, go to a bad place. Dreams are another great example. When you wake up from a dream, your mind tries to pull together all the nonsense that went on in your brain during REM sleep.

On the other hand, some people believe that dreams show premonitions, or things to come. I believe that the subconscious speaks on some level to the conscious mind when dreaming, but I take that with a grain of salt at times.

Also, relevant to this thread

https://science.slashdot.org/story/...at-the-public-thinks-and-what-scientists-know

Ratchit · Jan 30, 2015

steveB said:
Your argument amounts to the summary: "You can't imagine it, therefore it is not possible".

No, my argument is that since you cannot explain rationally how it could possibly happen with science, it did not happen from scientific principles. It happened from a power that transcends science. I am not denying the existence of something, just how it came into being.

Science is a tool that can be used to discover things that we could never imagine as possible.

Yes, we cannot imagine everything, so some things will be new to us. That does not negate the fact that some things are not possible with science.

The proof that such an unlikely thing can happen is that it did happen.

That is self-evident, isn't it? I never denied the physical existence of anything, did I? I only denied the way others proposed it came into being.

You attribute the reason to God, while a scientist works under the assumption that God, should he exist, is more subtle than simply waving his wand and making magic on a constant basis. He could do anything, including devising a basic set of laws that require the evolution of a universe and the evolution of life too. And even make a universe that appears self consistant from the inside and hence offer no proof of his existance.

I would not presume to know how God works, only that He is the only one who could do some things.

The scientist, if he believes in God, is then only discoving the mechanisms and laws that he put in place. If the scientist is not religious or just does not care to mix religion with science, then he just learns what the mechanism is.

It is a matter of realization. There are those, like me, who recognize that science has limits. Others, like you, think that science can do or explain everything if given enough time.

This is why we leave God out of science and why we dont draw lines in the sand and say "stop here". History has proved this is the wrong approach to attaining knowledge about nature.

History has not proved that recognizing scientific limits is wrong. You mentioned Copernicus earlier. His denunciation was an ecclesiastical decision to retain the power and influence of the Church. It had nothing to do with a thoughtful decision of what was in the purview of physics. Copernicus should have been the one who decided what was worth studying from a physics viewpoint. For instance, I think that those who try to create life from nonlife are spinning their wheels by wasting time and effort.

It's amazing to me that you can pretend to know exactly and with 100% certainty how a God might choose to build and run a universe.

Where did you get that idea? I never said or implied that. How could I possibly know how he built the universe, or how he runs it? All I know is that He is the only one capable of doing it.

Ratch

Ratchit · Jan 30, 2015

tcmtech said:
Actually as I understand it working at the literal atomic level where placing one specific atom at a time into a molecule or other such atomic matrix construct is already being done.
For example the worlds smallest video is literally done with stop motion photography of sorts of individual atoms being placed frame by frame.

Given that atomic scale manipulation and its variations developed from nano scale semi conductor development is already possible yes we do have the actual capacity to build a DNA string and larger organic chains atom by atom.
Granted given it is a painstakingly slow process that in itself does not mean that we can not literally build a exact living replica of a simple cell atom by atom.

As talked about here relating to synthetic lifeforms whic hare real living things that were built out of artificially assembled DNA. https://www.ted.com/talks/craig_venter_unveils_synthetic_life?language=en

We may not know the exact reasoning and rules behind the complex atomic and molecular laws that drive life but we now do know enough about their individual parts and how to observe, record and replicate them to build a living organism from nothing more than a pile of basic atomic stock.

So yea we do know how to build living organisms now. Granted they are at the electronics equivalent to a 555 timer blinking a small light bulb right now but they are synthetic lifeforms just the same.

One question. Is that something that will happen by itself? Does that construct, eat, defecate, reproduce, respond to stimuli, or have awareness? If not, then it is not life. It is instead an automaton.

Ratch

Ratchit · Jan 30, 2015

Overclocked said:
You are correct in some ways, but SteveB Showed me that others have had the same thought process (which is quite interesting). We could, infact say the same about God(s). God, as an entity and creator could be nothing more than our human minds trying to comprehend the unknown, so we come up with comforting thoughts. By no means is that a bad thing either . Death is a good example. We wish for those that have been good, or who have been suffering to go to a good place, while those who have done evil, go to a bad place. Dreams are another great example. When you wake up from a dream, your mind tries to pull together all the nonsense that went on in your brain during REM sleep.

On the other hand, some people believe that dreams show premonitions, or things to come. I believe that the subconscious speaks on some level to the conscious mind when dreaming, but I take that with a grain of salt at times.

Also, relevant to this thread

https://science.slashdot.org/story/15/01/30/0414242/the-gap-between-what-the-public-thinks-and-what-scientists-know

You are skirting the boundaries of religion. I don't know what you are averring. Do you think that the existence of the universe is a dream?

Ratch

steveB · Jan 30, 2015

Ratchit said:
Others, like you, think that science can do or explain everything if given enough time.

No, i never said that science can do or explain everything, given enough time.

I said that all natural phenomenon are viable subjects for science to study. There are no non-starters. That does not mean all or any answers will be found for every subject with the method.

I gave an opinion that I think people will use science to crack the origin of life question. I hinted that science has already provided a successful theory of evolution, which might someday be extended to cover the very origin of life.

I mentioned that science has provided a lot of information about the evolution of the universe, and expressed skepticism that it might crack the ultimate question of why the universe exists, must exist, or came into existence despite low probability. My skepticism or confidence has little weight, by the way, and should in no way be used for any purpose other than just gaining insight to the person making comments in this thread.

I also expressed skepticism that science can crack the mystery of consciousness, but in no way do I say that subject is off-limits to science.

Despite my opinion, the origin of life mystery might be too difficult to clearly answer with science. Perhaps God did do it, or perhaps the path to originate life is so complex and improbable and the information now gone, such that we can never figure it out. Perhaps the best science can do is lend a plausibility argument that there might be a scientific viable path for life to originate via known laws of chemistry and physics.

Perhaps, quantum gravity will never be figured out, or perhaps it is actually impossible to express the complete laws of physics in equation form or any form that humans could contemplate.

There is no guarantee that science can do or explain everything. It's just a powerful tool that can help compensate for human limits and weaknesses.

tcmtech · Jan 30, 2015

One question. Is that something that will happen by itself? Does that construct, eat, defecate, reproduce, respond to stimuli, or have awareness? If not, then it is not life. It is instead an automaton.

There are uncountable numbers of living organisms that do not do any of those things yet they are definable as alive just the same.

Because something does not fit your personal expectations or is beyond the grasp of your ignorance does not make it unreal or prevent it from existing. If anything the concept to claim so makes you appear at minimal very close minded and naive but as the world has come to see too many times religion and religious belief is seldom associated with open mindedness of any form.

Ratchit · Jan 30, 2015

tcmtech said:
There are uncountable numbers of living organisms that do not do any of those things yet they are definable as alive just the same.

Because something does not fit your personal expectations or is beyond the grasp of your ignorance does not make it unreal or prevent it from existing. If anything the concept to claim so makes you appear at minimal very close minded and naive but as the world has come to see too many times religion and religious belief is seldom associated with open mindedness of any form.

Name me just one organism that does not do all of those things, and are considered alive. Who said anything about how religion ties into this? I just listed a few of the features that biologists use to determine if something is alive.

Ratch

Ratchit · Jan 30, 2015

steveB said:
No, i never said that science can do or explain everything, given enough time.

My apology then for misunderstanding you.

I said that all natural phenomenon are viable subjects for science to study. There are no non-starters. That does not mean all or any answers will be found for every subject with the method.

And I believe that there are certain things that are beyond science and cannot be solved by science.

I gave an opinion that I think people will use science to crack the origin of life question. I hinted that science has already provided a successful theory of evolution, which might someday be extended to cover the very origin of life.

I don't think that will happen. The theory of evolution has a faulty premise.

I mentioned that science has provided a lot of information about the evolution of the universe, and expressed skepticism that it might crack the ultimate question of why the universe exists, must exist, or came into existence despite low probability. My skepticism or confidence has little weight, by the way, and should in no way be used for any purpose other than just gaining insight to the person making comments in this thread.

Yes, a lot of information about it operates, but not how it came into being.

I also expressed skepticism that science can crack the mystery of consciousness, but in no way do I say that subject is off-limits to science.

Certain aspects of the study of the mind is within the limits of science.

Despite my opinion, the origin of life mystery might be too difficult to clearly answer with science. Perhaps God did do it, or perhaps the path to originate life is so complex and improbable and the information now gone, such that we can never figure it out. Perhaps the best science can do is lend a plausibility argument that there might be a scientific viable path for life to originate via known laws of chemistry and physics.

I doubt that science will ever figure it out.

Perhaps, quantum gravity will never be figured out, or perhaps it is actually impossible to express the complete laws of physics in equation form or any form that humans could contemplate.

I don't know what quantum gravity is, so I will have to let that pass.

There is no guarantee that science can do or explain everything. It's just a powerful tool that can help compensate for human limits and weaknesses.

Yes, science can do a lot, but not everything.

Ratch

MrAl · Jan 31, 2015

Hi,

Too many questions coming up in this thread so i can not reply to all of them. I'll just have to pick a couple of things i think are most important for now.

First, and most important, the understanding of the universe is not going to be done using a binary construct of any kind, where we assume that if we prove we have a '1' then we know right away we dont have a '0' It's not like that. So for the case in point, if we prove evolution is true and perfect and really does exist, that does not exclude the existence of a higher intelligence. It does not prove that there is such a thing of course, but it also does not prove that there is not such a thing. So it's not one thing or the other, unless we can prove that there is a higher intelligence either at work now or happened to be at work sometime in the perhaps distant past.

For me, i have seen enough evidence of evolution to make an informed decision that it definitely works, but i might want to argue over the time scale and over how, when, and where it started, and maybe even why, and probably even how far reaching it can be (ie dinosaurs to chickens or not for example).
It is entirely possible that a higher intelligence INVENTED evolution, because we have no way to estimate what the highest possible intelligence is, either here or in another universe or super universe of some kind.

Also, we may have reached the point where our deepest understanding of the universe just gets too complex. We have to remember that like it or not, we are limited, at least as we know it now, to the number of particles in the universe. Given all the particles in the universe to work with, we may not be able to write out the equations necessary to describe that same confined space, or should i say describe all the matter in that space.
That is, the information required may be greater than the available matter we have to work with at present.

Ratch:
If you want an example of simple going to complex, just look down, you are standing on it or at least on something that is supported by it. Look up how the Earth was formed out of small particles.

Also, i gave you some smaller examples. For one, the magnet balls. The magnet balls only have two poles, north and south, so they are simple. Yet when you throw a bunch of them together, then can form objects with a whole variety of shapes. One notable shape is a hex.

The obvious question is, how do you get a cell from this? The answer is, i dont know, but the example is not meant to explain how a cell is created in every possible way (more than one could be possible too), it is an example which shows us that simple things can make more complex things through a random process.
And after all, how do you know God didnt INVENT randomness? That is, randomness itself could be a process that was created in order to create cells through a process that man would not be allowed to figure out and therefore prove scientifically that God exists.

As the linked article says, artificial DNA has now been produced, so i think progress has been made. I dont think we can explain everything yet, but we're getting close.

Also, another good example of evolution is a program that finds scientific formulas based on evolutionary principles. The program can find formulas like the area of a circle, stuff like that. It is slow however, which shows that evolution takes a long time for some things to work out.

As to the anthropic principle, it could be true, but i have a hard time believing that we are here at this very point in time and able to analyze the universe right now. It seems like too much of a coincidence.
The only exception to this is if maybe we believe in the infinite era idea, or the very large era idea, where the time before and after our universe existed is much much greater than any time period we can understand at present. In other words, so much time would be available for natural processes that experimental universes would pop up now and then, and we happen to be in one that 'worked' as we know it. In the far, far, distance past, there could have been one that worked better, or in the future there may be one that works better. Or perhaps the multiverse as it is called, where there are a huge number of experimental universes in existence right now, but only some of them 'work' as we know it.

So again, we are limited by the number of particles in the universe, so we are limited in thought.

PS
Quantum gravity is just gravity that is quantized, ie has a particle associated with it.

Ratchit · Jan 31, 2015

MrAl said:
Hi,

Too many questions coming up in this thread so i can not reply to all of them. I'll just have to pick a couple of things i think are most important for now.

First, and most important, the understanding of the universe is not going to be done using a binary construct of any kind, where we assume that if we prove we have a '1' then we know right away we dont have a '0' It's not like that. So for the case in point, if we prove evolution is true and perfect and really does exist, that does not exclude the existence of a higher intelligence. It does not prove that there is such a thing of course, but it also does not prove that there is not such a thing. So it's not one thing or the other, unless we can prove that there is a higher intelligence either at work now or happened to be at work sometime in the perhaps distant past.

For me, i have seen enough evidence of evolution to make an informed decision that it definitely works, but i might want to argue over the time scale and over how, when, and where it started, and maybe even why, and probably even how far reaching it can be (ie dinosaurs to chickens or not for example).
It is entirely possible that a higher intelligence INVENTED evolution, because we have no way to estimate what the highest possible intelligence is, either here or in another universe or super universe of some kind.

Also, we may have reached the point where our deepest understanding of the universe just gets too complex. We have to remember that like it or not, we are limited, at least as we know it now, to the number of particles in the universe. Given all the particles in the universe to work with, we may not be able to write out the equations necessary to describe that same confined space, or should i say describe all the matter in that space.
That is, the information required may be greater than the available matter we have to work with at present.

Ratch:
If you want an example of simple going to complex, just look down, you are standing on it or at least on something that is supported by it. Look up how the Earth was formed out of small particles.

Also, i gave you some smaller examples. For one, the magnet balls. The magnet balls only have two poles, north and south, so they are simple. Yet when you throw a bunch of them together, then can form objects with a whole variety of shapes. One notable shape is a hex.

The obvious question is, how do you get a cell from this? The answer is, i dont know, but the example is not meant to explain how a cell is created in every possible way (more than one could be possible too), it is an example which shows us that simple things can make more complex things through a random process.
And after all, how do you know God didnt INVENT randomness? That is, randomness itself could be a process that was created in order to create cells through a process that man would not be allowed to figure out and therefore prove scientifically that God exists.

As the linked article says, artificial DNA has now been produced, so i think progress has been made. I dont think we can explain everything yet, but we're getting close.

Also, another good example of evolution is a program that finds scientific formulas based on evolutionary principles. The program can find formulas like the area of a circle, stuff like that. It is slow however, which shows that evolution takes a long time for some things to work out.

As to the anthropic principle, it could be true, but i have a hard time believing that we are here at this very point in time and able to analyze the universe right now. It seems like too much of a coincidence.
The only exception to this is if maybe we believe in the infinite era idea, or the very large era idea, where the time before and after our universe existed is much much greater than any time period we can understand at present. In other words, so much time would be available for natural processes that experimental universes would pop up now and then, and we happen to be in one that 'worked' as we know it. In the far, far, distance past, there could have been one that worked better, or in the future there may be one that works better. Or perhaps the multiverse as it is called, where there are a huge number of experimental universes in existence right now, but only some of them 'work' as we know it.

So again, we are limited by the number of particles in the universe, so we are limited in thought.

PS
Quantum gravity is just gravity that is quantized, ie has a particle associated with it.

The Earth is a accretion of matter brought together by gravity into a spherical shape. It is a natural process that happens all over the place when mass accumulates somewhere. That is not what I see as an example of evolution, especially the start of life. I cannot imagine the meaning of a phrase like "if evolution existed". It would be like the phrase, "if matter repelled itself instead of attracting itself".

Ratch

A practising Engineer explains over unity or free energy misconceptions

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Banned

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Banned

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Banned

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency