changin' ur genes

[DaveC426913]

And you are right , this is not a formal dissertation but an informal discussion. But then it is you who insists on a formal scientific dissertation. Duplicitous.

I simply insist on saying what you mean, so we don't have to spend three pages getting to what you "really" mean.

I never made accusations; I simply pointed out the implications of what you were saying. You had pages and pages to correct your idea so it didn't say that. It was only my drawing attention back to it that you eventually realized you had overstated your case and have now altered and improved it.

And that's OK.

But instead of being appreciative for helping you move your idea forward (which is what you wanted), you cast aspersions about my duplicity?


It may have been a bumpy road to get here, but you did make some progress, did you not?

 

[globali]

I am confused.
I think that the Universe can be either intelligent or not at all. There is nothing in between. Its either black or white.
If its a little bit intelligent (stupid) or "indirectly" intelligent, this counts as the Universe being intelligent (with or without a Creator). It either has a purpose or not. (btw what is this purpose?)

Write4U: You previously stated that the Universe designs itself (on what direction?what does it try to achieve?), and that was the take home message. Then you took it back.
Can you update in 3-4 lines the current take home message of your thoughts, after the corrections?

 

[Write4U]

I am confused.
I think that the Universe can be either intelligent or not at all. There is nothing in between. Its either black or white.
If its a little bit intelligent (stupid) or "indirectly" intelligent, this counts as the Universe being intelligent (with or without a Creator). It either has a purpose or not. (btw what is this purpose?)

No one has claimed the universe is a little bit intelligent, with or without a creator.

Write4U: You previously stated that the Universe designs itself (on what direction?what does it try to achieve?), and that was the take home message. Then you took it back.
Can you update in 3-4 lines the current take home message of your thoughts, after the corrections?

I never said that the universe is a little bit intelligent (stupid) or "indirectly" intelligent, with or without a Creator. I did say that due to its mathematical nature, the universe is a self-ordering system, and I don't see any controversial "hidden" mystical message in that simple posit.

I did make one alteration in an attempt to posit a single referential statement which sums up my perspective.
I'll post it yet one more time;
"Please use only the term "quasi-intelligent self-referential system" when referring to my argument."

To illustrate exactly what I am positing, please check back to post # 75 where I cite a link to CDT (causal dynamical triangulation) as described in Wikipedia. For your convenience I shall repeat the synopsis from Wiki.

I urge you to pay close attention to every word as it describes a profound cutting edge hypothesis which opens up an entirely new and exciting approach to "quantum gravity".

Causal dynamical triangulation (abbreviated as CDT) theorized by Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, and popularized by Fotini Markopoulou and Lee Smolin, is an approach to quantum gravity that like loop quantum gravity is background independent.

i.e.
No God, no ID, no intelligence, no motive, no mystical suggestion of any kind.

This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space), but rather attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.

i.e. A self-ordering system

The Loops '05 conference, hosted by many loop quantum gravity theorists, included several presentations which discussed CDT in great depth, and revealed it to be a pivotal insight for theorists. It has sparked considerable interest as it appears to have a good semi-classical description. At large scales, it re-creates the familiar 4-dimensional spacetime, but it shows spacetime to be 2-d near the Planck scale, and reveals a fractal structure on slices of constant time.

These interesting results agree with the findings of Lauscher and Reuter, who use an approach called Quantum Einstein Gravity, and with other recent theoretical work. A brief article appeared in the February 2007 issue of Scientific American, which gives an overview of the theory, explained why some physicists are excited about it, and put it in historical perspective. The same publication gives CDT, and its primary authors, a feature article in its July 2008 issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation

 

[globali]

"Please use only the term "quasi-intelligent self-referential system" when referring to my argument."

To illustrate exactly what I am positing, please check back to post # 75 where I cite a link to CDT (causal dynamical triangulation) as described in Wikipedia. For your convenience I shall repeat the synopsis from Wiki.
I urge you to pay close attention to every word as it describes a profound cutting edge hypothesis which opens up an entirely new and exciting approach to "quantum gravity".

Ok! I didn't know you were proposing a new theory. An idea would be to start a new thread in another section so we can discuss better. I think all of us pay close attention to your thoughts and this debate has been interesting. No one wants to be called an incompetent, lazy or dishonest listener that tries to suppress creative activity, which we value and respect. After all, only truth matters and even the listeners will be judged at the end.

......but rather attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.
i.e. A self-ordering system

I am confused again. These cosmological models are not my expertise so i can't judge them technically. I wonder how respected is this model to the other experts. Seems a little bit "fringy"

I have some questions.
Doesn't the term "how the spacetime fabric itself evolves" means how it changes over time? It can evolve to a more ordered OR more frequently to a disordered state. Evolution does not usually imply order.
Btw I thought that the Universe as an isolated system follows the second law of thermodynamics making it a kind of "self-disordering" system.
But lets assume that it is indeed a self-ordering system. It is ordering into what? What is gonna be the end result? A huge computer or what?

I also don't understand your personal addition to this. And i don't also understand how this is related to biology
(especially since it is known that chemistry does not self-assemble spontaneously, but the disordering forces are always way stronger at any moment, ready to destroy any order that was previously gained. So a weak underlying order-promoting law will still not be enough).

 

[Write4U]

Ok! I didn't know you were proposing a new theory.

I am not proposing a new theory. The link was to provide an illustration of my grand generalization.

In this case the mathematical (fractal) nature of spacetime.
"Causal Dynamical Triangulation"

I am not espousing a specific theory at all. I am trying to find fundamental aspects (constants) of spacetime which are common to all things and can therefore be used (by others) to fashion a general referential understanding of how it is possible for any of it to work at all.

E = Mc^2 is another such constant which is an apparent common denominator throughout the universe.

My aim is "understanding", no more , no less. No Nobel for me........

After all, only truth matters and even the listeners will be judged at the end.

I often find knee-jerk responses, because an i has not been dotted, and the 'conversation' gets hopelessly stuck on a trivial detail.

But lets assume that it is indeed a self-ordering system. It is ordering into what? What is gonna be the end result? A huge computer or what?

Those are the questions I like to see, so they can be discussed.

And i don't also understand how this is related to biology
(especially since it is known that chemistry does not self-assemble spontaneously

Ah, but there's the crux. Chemistry does indeed self-assemble spontaneously.
And that is where the apparent "quasi-intelligent" behavior becomes manifest.
Just like the spontaneous self-assembly of a snowflake, a beautiful mathematical pattern.

Example;

Chirality/kaɪˈrælɪti/ is a geometric property of some molecules and ions. A chiral molecule/ion is non-superposable on its mirror image. The presence of an asymmetric carbon center is one of several structural features that induce chirality in organic and inorganic molecules

In biochemistry

Many biologically active molecules are chiral, including the naturally occurring amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) and sugars.

The origin of this homochirality in biology is the subject of much debate.[12] Most scientists believe that Earth life's "choice" of chirality was purely random, and that if carbon-based life forms exist elsewhere in the universe, their chemistry could theoretically have opposite chirality.

However, there is some suggestion that early amino acids could have formed in comet dust. In this case, circularly polarised radiation (which makes up 17% of stellar radiation) could have caused the selective destruction of one chirality of amino acids, leading to a selection bias which ultimately resulted in all life on Earth being homochiral

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_(chemistry)#In_biochemistry

 

[DaveC426913]

No one has claimed the universe is a little bit intelligent, with or without a creator.
I never said that the universe is a little bit intelligent (stupid) or "indirectly" intelligent, with or without a Creator.

You did, many times, claim the universe was pseudo-intelligent - though you've since recanted.
While I'll grant your modification of your idea, it doesn't help thread continuity to try to rewrite history.

 

[DaveC426913]

I often find knee-jerk responses, because an i has not been dotted, and the 'conversation' gets hopelessly stuck on a trivial detail

If they were trivial, you could easily grant them - so as not to get stuck, yes?

Instead, you spend pages saying "in my opinion an i does need a dot", and then go on to construct a thesis that hinges on dotless i's.


Here's one from me:
D: "2+2 = 4, which in my opinion is pretty close to 5. Now, since 5 is a prime number, we can now go on to deduce..."
W: "2+2 is 4, not 5."
D: "4 is a lot like 5. Don't bother me with details."

Sure, it's reductio absurdum, but it makes the point: you can't call it "just dotting i's" (and then accuse others of quibbling over it) if your thesis lives or dies by it.

 

[DaveC426913]

Ah, but there's the crux. Chemistry does indeed self-assemble spontaneously.
And that is where the apparent "quasi-intelligent" behavior becomes manifest.

W4u:
Why keep invoking the term quasi-intelligent?
What concept is it short-hand for?
If you were to decrypt the shorthand meaning you ascribe to this term, what would a paragraph say?
What does it add to your thesis?
Does your idea live and die by the appellation 'quasi-intelligence'?
What exactly are you trying to tell us? That the universe acts intelligently? If so, why not say it? If not, why say it?

 

[Write4U]

W4u:
Why keep invoking the term quasi-intelligent?
What concept is it short-hand for?

Something that appears to have a form of intelligence, but isn't intelligent as we define the term.
I provided the definition of "quasi" to make it as clear as possible what I mean by including the word in a compound term.

It is the only term I insist on. Any other interpretation is not what I mean. One can accept that or not.

 

[DaveC426913]

Is a faux-diamond a diamond?

What exactly is a faux diamond? Cubic Zirconia? OK. So your thesis is based on Cubic Zirconia - explicitly not diamond, right?

What clarity is brought to your thesis by constantly referring to diamonds - which have nothing to do with your thesis?

Why is it so important that your thesis keep the idea of diamonds so close to-mind - if not to keep your readers thinking you really mean diamonds?


Why is it central to your idea of the universe, that we keep hearing the word "intelligent" - instead of hearing what you really need us to hear? Why not simply tell us what you need us to hear? Why throw the scent off?

 

[Write4U]

You did, many times, claim the universe was pseudo-intelligent - though you've since recanted.
While I'll grant your modification of your idea, it doesn't help thread continuity to try to rewrite history.

But I am not trying to rewrite history. I just want to get on with it after I made the correction accompanied by a sincere apology.

I hate beating a dead horse, nor do I like to be beaten ad nauseumafter the issue has been cleared.

 

[globali]

I am not proposing a new theory. The link was to provide an illustration of my grand generalization.

well, linking a theory for quantum gravity with biology is by definition an "alternative" theory.

I often find knee-jerk responses, because an i has not been dotted, and the 'conversation' gets hopelessly stuck on a trivial detail.
Those are the questions I like to see, so they can be discussed.

Really? Nothing is trivia or to be taken for granted in science. The basic component of science is rigor and clarity. This is what separates a real scientist from a plumber that is interested in science. Trust me, if you ever work in a big research institute, you will spend 80% of your interaction time with other colleagues into trying to defend your ideas against what you will perceive as knee-jerk reactions. Although this is frustrating, its how you build rigor and become a scientist.

Ah, but there's the crux. Chemistry does indeed self-assemble spontaneously.
And that is where the apparent "quasi-intelligent" behavior becomes manifest.

Many biologically active molecules are chiral, including the naturally occurring amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) and sugars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_(chemistry)#In_biochemistry

I strongly disagree. Do you understand what chirality is?
Molecules in chemical reactions produce mixtures of different isomers by chance. Organic chemicals only react with others of the same chirality. So one of the two chiralities needs to prevail in a living system. There is nothing quasi-intelligent to this.

 

[Write4U]

Why is it central to your idea of the universe, that we keep hearing the word "intelligent" - instead of hearing what you really need us to hear? Why not simply tell us what you need us to hear? Why throw the scent off?

I have asked you (or anyone) many times if you can offer a better analogy. Until someone can offer a better definition, mine will have to do.

 

[DaveC426913]

I have asked you (or anyone) many times if you can offer a better analogy. Until someone can offer a better definition, mine will have to do.

Why does there need to be an "analogy" at all?
Why not look at the facts as they are?

The universe has no precedent - it doesn't have to follow a pattern that you've seen before, it is folly to go looking for one - because instead of finding one, you're inventing one.

You're seeing three pies, and three angles, and insisting there has to be a triangle.
There doesn't have to be a triangle.

 

[Write4U]

well, linking a theory for quantum gravity with biology is by definition an "alternative" theory.

No, it doesn't replace anything. Quantum Biology is a new field, an offshoot of Quantum Mechanics, it does not replace QM. It applies QM to the biological world. That's the exciting part!

If you check my links, you will discover that I have supported all my missives with links to "current" serious research.

 

[Write4U]

The universe has no precedent - it doesn't have to follow a pattern that you've seen before, it is folly to go looking for one - because instead of finding one, you're inventing one.

No, I am merely offering a "perspective". If you can empathize with that, excellent! If not, then all I can do is keep offering examples which illustrate my perspective, in the hope that at some point, someone says "ahhh, I see what you mean". And if I am really lucky, additional question or suggestions.

 

[globali]

No, it doesn't replace anything. Quantum Biology is a new field, an offshoot of Quantum Mechanics, it does not replace QM. It applies QM to the biological world. That's the exciting part!

If you check my links, you will discover that I have supported all my missives with links to "current" serious research.

quantum biology is a new field as consciousness quantumology, etc. The fact that it exists doesn't necessarily mean that it is real science.
Now i am not saying that quantum biology is not legit. However, overwhelming real evidence from experiments unfortunately show that quantum phenomena in biology, play a very small role. And thats a fact

 

[DaveC426913]

No, I am merely offering a "perspective". If you can empathize with that, excellent! If not, then all I can do is keep offering examples which illustrate my perspective.

And all I can do is draw attention to the fact that your examples keep using the word 'intelligence'.

If you don't want us to conclude you're talking about diamonds, stop talking about diamonds...

If you don't want readers to think you're hinting at ID, stop using the trigger words. Use more appropriate words.

 

[Write4U]

quantum biology is a new field as consciousness quantumology, etc. The fact that it exists doesn't necessarily mean that it is real science.
Now i am not saying that quantum biology is not legit. However, overwhelming real evidence from experiments unfortunately show that quantum phenomena in biology, play a very small role. And thats a fact

No it is not. It is a new field and little is as yet known, but shows enormous promise. Check the links I provided.

Can you provide a link that debunks quantum biology? If not, on what information do you dismiss quantum biology as playing a trivially small role.

Photosynthesis is a quantum phenomenon. Are you suggesting that photosynthesis plays only a small role in biology?

 

[Write4U]

If you don't want us to conclude you're talking about diamonds, stop talking about diamonds...

So, if I say I am talking about faux diamonds I am talking natural diamonds?