Stephen Hawking's last paper: multiverses follow the laws of physics

[RJM Corbet]

Seems they did actually create RNA, not just it's ingredients. Still a long way though from creating a living, anti- entropic, self reproducing ... thing?

But no they didn't create RNA did they? They managed to create a couple of its constituent 'ribonucleotides" or something? So in fact they finally managed, after many years and much effort, to make one or two buttons and the press gave us the emperor's new clothes? So I wasn't being such a fool after all.

I feel much better now

 

[Onyx]

But no they didn't create RNA did they? They managed to create a couple of its constituent 'ribonucleotides" or something? So in fact they finally managed, after many years and much effort, to make one or two buttons and the press gave us the emperor's new clothes? So I wasn't being such a fool after all.

I feel much better now

I guess it depends on what you meant by "basic living molecule".

 

[RJM Corbet]

I guess it depends on what you meant by "basic living molecule".

Viable, non- entropic. We'll drop self reproducing for now, if you like. Also there's no need to limit it to trying to reproduce possible early conditions: how about reproducing life under ANY conditions?

Aw, c'mon: ribonucleotides are NOT living molecules under any definition. And that's obvious even to someone as uneducated in biological sciences as I am. The more anyone tries to justify this as creating 'life' the more desperate they sound, imo.

EDIT: Hawking left 'viable' off his definition, in order to admit viruses. And went on to propose computer viruses as artificially created life. Desperate ...

 

[Onyx]

Viable, non- entropic. We'll drop self reproducing for now, if you like. Also there's no need to limit it to trying to reproduce possible early conditions: how about reproducing life under ANY conditions?

Aw, c'mon: ribonucleotides are NOT living molecules under any definition. And that's obvious even to someone as uneducated in biological sciences as I am. The more anyone tries to justify this as creating 'life' the more desperate they sound, imo.

EDIT: Hawking left 'viable' off his definition, in order to admit viruses. And went on to propose computer viruses as artificially created life. Desperate ...

No molecules are "living", so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

 

[RJM Corbet]

No molecules are "living", so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Well then, I must mean a combination of molecules that become a viable etc, entity? Ok?

 

[Amberlen]

I suppose I just wonder why it is out of bounds to think there is a similar to earth type of planet with similar life....not exact of course,but you know some sort of vegetation, animals? Other humans? Idk....this sort Of discussion based on actual science is out of my foray, but I don't like to think it is an impossibility.

 

[RJM Corbet]

I suppose I just wonder why it is out of bounds to think there is a similar to earth type of planet with similar life....not exact of course,but you know some sort of vegetation, animals? Other humans? Idk....this sort Of discussion based on actual science is out of my foray, but I don't like to think it is an impossibility.

Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Should cover the issue, lol

 

[RJM Corbet]

Amazingly the brightest scientific minds on Earth explain all this away by citing the 'weak AP' = "Well, that's just the way things are. So what?"

Really. Really, they do ...

 

[Onyx]

Amazingly the brightest scientific minds on Earth explain all this away by citing the 'weak AP' = "Well, that's just the way things are. So what?"

Really. Really, they do ...

Could you explain what you mean by that?

Well then, I must mean a combination of molecules that become a viable etc, entity? Ok?

No combination of molecules "become viable". Put any life form through a sieve and you'll have all the molecules of life, but they won't self organize into life.

 

[RJM Corbet]

Could you explain what you mean by that?



No combination of molecules "become viable". Put any life form through a sieve and you'll have all the molecules of life, but they won't self organize into life.

I rest my case.

Life is what animates the form.

 

[Onyx]

I rest my case.

I'm sorry, that simply doesn't make any sense. You coined the term "life molecules" as if you believe they exist. You can't make a case that science has failed because it didn't provide something you now say is made up.

The overall theme of your posts in this thread is that you think science or scientists have somehow been duplicitous. But as the discussion goes along you appear to change your mind about the specifics while sticking to the theme of the failings of science. I apologize if this seems overly critical, but shouldn't you be more familiar with the material you'd like to critique before you pass judgement on its failings?

 

[RJM Corbet]

No I'm saying some parts of science are arrogant. Science has not created or come close to creating life. Its a wonderful and mysterious thing. Some parts of science may have lost all sense of wonder -- and yes, reverence -- at the real complexity and beauty of this one universe we can be sure of.

We've worked the AP discussion to death and must agree to disagree on the validity of the weak AP as an explanation for anything. And I've said I'm not knowledgeable about biology, so I'm not going to get into a detailed discussion of molecules and nucleotides and genes etc, because I don't know enough. I will read and learn from what anyone says.

 

[Onyx]

No I'm saying some parts of science are arrogant. Science has not created or come close to creating life. Its a wonderful and mysterious thing. Some parts of science may have lost all sense of wonder -- and yes, reverence -- at the real complexity and beauty of this one universe we can be sure of.

Respectfully, you should become more familiar with the tenants of science before you imbue an academic methodology with anthropomorphic characteristics like arrogance.

 

[RJM Corbet]

Respectfully, you should become more familiar with the tenants of science before you imbue an academic methodology with anthropomorphic characteristics like arrogance.

I am not imbuing academic methodology with anthropomorphic anything. I'm saying that methodology for all its true grandeur and brilliance -- for which I have the most enormous respect -- still has 96% of this universe to account for under labels dark matter and dark energy and still has no explanation for fine-tunings except for the pathetic weak AP (and now a new desperate theory of 'naturalness' which is in effect saying: Well, we can't explain it yet, but one day we will be able to).

And most of all, some people of that academic methodology while trumpeting their intellectual superiority over other mere mortals, while taking life, the universe and everything apart to find out how it works -- and wonderful work they are truly accomplishing -- cant' put it back together.

Some seem to have lost all sense of humility before the universe to the extent of perhaps even assuming one day to be able to control it.

I am a layman. I can't be expected to have to do quadratic equations or whatever to look for deeper explanations for life, the universe and everything. Newton, Einstein, even Feynman, were essentially humble beings, working to unravel the secrets of a 'greater power' imo. I don't see that around much nowadays.

I really want to leave it there ...

 

[Brian G Turner]

And... time to get back to multiverse theory.

Here's Wikipedia's coverage of it: Many-worlds interpretation - Wikipedia

My introduction was through reading David Deutsch, who remains a vocal proponent of it. While he's done a lot of ground-breaking work with quantum technology, he's now trying to re-imagine the laws of physics in terms of changing states of information - something he calls "Constructor Theory":

 

[RJM Corbet]

And... time to get back to multiverse theory.

Here's Wikipedia's coverage of it: Many-worlds interpretation - Wikipedia

My introduction was through reading David Deutsch, who remains a vocal proponent of it. While he's done a lot of ground-breaking work with quantum technology, he's now trying to re-imagine the laws of physics in terms of changing states of information - something he calls "Constructor Theory":

I look forward to watching that -- once I'm in a wi-fi zone, because you tube devours my G4 data allowance, lol

 

[Onyx]

My introduction was through reading David Deutsch, who remains a vocal proponent of it. While he's done a lot of ground-breaking work with quantum technology, he's now trying to re-imagine the laws of physics in terms of changing states of information - something he calls "Constructor Theory":

The video doesn't really say what it is, but more why it should be. This article is a little more specific:
Constructor theory - Wikipedia

Interestingly, one theory I've read about the dark matter problem also says that it is only a requirement if physics has to work in either direction of time. If you take away this requirement, then the extra gravitation of non-baryonic becomes unnecessary to model galactic rotation and the expansion rates of the universe.

I can see how a quantum computer's ability to test and discard all "impossible" or incorrect solutions would apply to a constructor problem. But it gets confusing when they relate it back to systems that are so complex that just programming the computer model would take millions of years. Using it for orbital mechanics makes more sense.

 

[Amberlen]

@RJM Corbet so, i read your link on fine tuning....i am not sure whether i agree on the premise or not, but i dont suppose i have to decide either way, as my end understanding was that it is all theory.unproven to date. I am possibly odd girl out here in that i DO believe that there was and is an "intelligent design" to the universe..in effect, a Creator, who i call God- but at the same time, that doesnt mean i believe in Genesis verbatim, nor do i think that automatically means i can't believe there are other lifeforms, inhabitable planets, planes, dimensions,"multiverses (nods @Onyx ) or what have you. Our creation in my mind, doesnt necessarily translate that there was nothing before, or since.*shrug* maybe that will be perceived as naive, idk, i just also like to think i dont know, what i dont know.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Interestingly, one theory I've read about the dark matter problem also says that it is only a requirement if physics has to work in either direction of time. If you take away this requirement, then the extra gravitation of non-baryonic becomes unnecessary to model galactic rotation and the expansion rates of the universe.

That sounds very interesting - the whole concept of Dark Matter bugs the heck out of me. It's like we're back to the Victorian concept of The Ether again.

Btw, just a general reminder that we don't discussion religion or spiritual beliefs here - too likely to invite an argument.

 

[Amberlen]

i got you @Brian G Turner ....not discussing, just stating where i was at, or coming from