Divine inventions: The Ribosome

[Black Rose]

An obvious straw man of the most pitiful order. You may as well bring up the crocoduck.

Don't be so foolish as to suppose that I should think an entire cell would appear at once. That is daft. A strand of molecules that couples and separates in order to form copies of itself is no a masterwork of complexity. When I speak of something arising, that is the type of thing I mean. It occurs as different amino acids form, eventually becoming more complex. It is these that eventually evolve into something you would recognize as life. It occurs one small step at a time.

Its not a strawman it is a legitimate augment that scales to where biology is.

@GodOfOrder

The cell replicates using a process like forging a steal sword or baking bread or building a combustion engine. These do not just happen in random order or by random part construction. Why would replicators produce ribosomes, they are complex and only one of hundreds/thousands of components in a cell?

 

[SpaceYeti]

The context is a young earth with frothing, mineral rich, seas and good temperatures. (By the way scientists have, in flasks, created similar conditions and found that amino acids tend to form) The energy comes from the sun and outer space, the same places that it has always come from. You don't really need much more of a jump start than that. It is just a matter of waiting until these amino acids form into something that replicates, and at that stage life behaves more like some mechanical algorithm than anything else. And the simple fact is, where eternity is concerned, the likelihood that something will eventually arise is high, even if that particular outcome is in itself improbable.

This "life" you speak of wouldn't really have much of a metabolism or many other aspects of current life, and, biologically speaking, not technically qualify as "life". However, it's important to point out that, just like with any gradient, you can't exactly draw a line and say one side is life and the other side isn't. I mean, you could, but the line would be fairly arbitrarily placed.

At any rate, this joker doesn't seem to want to allow conversations to progress. I'm leaning towards "troll" again.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Its not a strawman it is a legitimate augment that scales to where biology is.

No, it doesn't. The amino acids being discussed can form, they've been shown to form on their own. Stars shaped like Mikey Mouse, on the other hand, are effectively impossible in the same way you'll never roll a 7 on a 6 sided di. No matter how long you wait, something that can't happen; won't. Given enough time, something that can happen; will.

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

No, it doesn't. The amino acids being discussed can form, they've been shown to form on their own...

So where did the scientist's who organized the amino acids get their power/ influence to gather, organize, plan, and execute the experiment?

Something from nothing violates the first (matter) and second (energy) law of thermodynamics.

Great, now the so-called "godless" (they have their gods despite the definition delving into semantics) wish to violate two eternal laws that even the most "godless" of scientists consent are truths.

If true, its hypocrisy and self-deceit. The laws are either true or not.

 

[GodOfOrder]

This "life" you speak of wouldn't really have much of a metabolism or many other aspects of current life, and, biologically speaking, not technically qualify as "life". However, it's important to point out that, just like with any gradient, you can't exactly draw a line and say one side is life and the other side isn't. I mean, you could, but the line would be fairly arbitrarily placed.

At any rate, this joker doesn't seem to want to allow conversations to progress. I'm leaning towards "troll" again.

Right in every respect, SpaceYeti. The "life" of which I speak wouldn't really need one. It just copies itself. But even these young replicators are subject to natural selection. They compete with other types of replicators, for materials to make more copies of themselves. Thus they eventually evolve to become more sophisticated. They become more advanced because different combinations of amino acids form chains which then can produce proteins. From these changes in molecular combinations of the replicators composition, different and more complexly ordered proteins can be synthesized. It is only as they acquire all of these other mechanisms that metabolism becomes a thing.

 

[Hawkeye]

So where did the scientist's who organized the amino acids get their power/ influence to gather, organize, plan, and execute the experiment?

Something from nothing violates the first (matter) and second (energy) law of thermodynamics.

Great, now the so-called "godless" (they have their gods despite the definition delving into semantics) wish to violate two eternal laws that even the most "godless" of scientists consent are truths.

If true, its hypocrisy and self-deceit. The laws are either true or not.

Where is this something from nothing violation? Lifeforms are made of the same basic materials as none living objects.

 

[SpaceYeti]

So where did the scientist's who organized the amino acids get their power/ influence to gather, organize, plan, and execute the experiment?

Something from nothing violates the first (matter) and second (energy) law of thermodynamics.

Great, now the so-called "godless" (they have their gods despite the definition delving into semantics) wish to violate two eternal laws that even the most "godless" of scientists consent are truths.

If true, its hypocrisy and self-deceit. The laws are either true or not.

Ignoring intent; definitely trolling. Obviously, the amino acids formed on their own from their building blocks, which were put in place by other forces for the experiments. Unlike things which are actually built. You can't just toss a bunch of mortar and wood into a hole, send a current through the stuff, and get a house. You're not even trying to communicate, just arguing for the balls of it.

 

[Black Rose]

Obviously, the amino acids formed on their own from their building blocks, which were put in place by other forces for the experiments.

Amino acids are not protiens. Proteins are hundreds of amino acids long. Is there experienments showing self forming protiens? Please link, thanks.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Amino acids are not protiens. Proteins are hundreds of amino acids long. Is there experienments showing self forming protiens? Please link, thanks.

None I'm aware of, but modern proteins aren't the only enzymes with functions or which can be produced.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

 

[Black Rose]

None I'm aware of, but modern proteins aren't the only enzymes with functions or which can be produced.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Thousand/millions of tRNA must be present in the cytoplasm along with Thousand/millions components of each other types of catalysts and proteins to begin cell division. Microtubule are the transportation system for delivery services and separate the dna chromosomes in division. Energy must be stored and gathered and transported. Photosynthesis must first be created before animal life can consume. We still need a hundreds/thousands of processes and trillions of atoms just to get started inside a single cell.

I would not be surprised if the entire ocean was amino acids but where do the concentrations for Networks of molecular machinery happen on early earth?

Spoiler

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

Thousand/millions of tRNA must be present in the cytoplasm along with Thousand/millions components of each other types of catalysts and proteins to begin cell division. Microtubule are the transportation system for delivery services and separate the dna chromosomes in division. Energy must be stored and gathered and transported. Photosynthesis must first be created before animal life can consume. We still need a hundreds/thousands of processes and trillions of atoms just to get started inside a single cell.

I would not be surprised if the entire ocean was amino acids but where do the concentrations for Networks of molecular machinery happen on early earth?

Spoiler

Chance.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Thousand/millions of tRNA must be present in the cytoplasm along with Thousand/millions components of each other types of catalysts and proteins to begin cell division. Microtubule are the transportation system for delivery services and separate the dna chromosomes in division. Energy must be stored and gathered and transported. Photosynthesis must first be created before animal life can consume. We still need a hundreds/thousands of processes and trillions of atoms just to get started inside a single cell.

I would not be surprised if the entire ocean was amino acids but where do the concentrations for Networks of molecular machinery happen on early earth?

You didn't even click on the link I provided let alone read it, did you?

 

[Black Rose]

You didn't even click on the link I provided let alone read it, did you?

Fist I'm a troll then I'm disingenuous.
Maybe I'm not even smart enough communicate what i intuit(know implicitly).

 

[Nick]

Isn't it strange, just to be alive.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Fist I'm a troll then I'm disingenuous.
Maybe I'm not even smart enough communicate what i intuit(know implicitly).

I never called you a troll, but your reply to my post was actually covered in my link... so yes, if you're going to claim you read the link I provided, I will call you disingenuous. Perhaps you simply didn't understand it, though. That's also an option. What we're discussing is not modern cells. Don't make the mistake of thinking these... what are they called, preprotowhatsits? Don't think they're as complex as modern cells. They're nowhere near that complex. Complexity arose as a result of duplication with variance and attrition.

 

[Black Rose]

I never called you a troll, but your reply to my post was actually covered in my link... so yes, if you're going to claim you read the link I provided, I will call you disingenuous. Perhaps you simply didn't understand it, though. That's also an option. What we're discussing is not modern cells. Don't make the mistake of thinking these... what are they called, preprotowhatsits? Don't think they're as complex as modern cells. They're nowhere near that complex. Complexity arose as a result of duplication with variance and attrition.

So it was a soup of amino acids that they lived in? This wasn't deluded by the ocean and had its own energy source and eventually photosynthesis arose?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Maybe I'm not even smart enough communicate what i intuit(know implicitly).

I feel your pain.

Isn't it strange, just to be alive.

To be screaming with life? To be aflame? To have godhead over light and darkness alike?

 

[Coolydudey]

The evolution of such structures is a possibility. Their creation is also a possibility. Heck, god could be some awe-inspiringly intelligent alien. Anyone who sets their faith in either is (childishly) looking for certainty in a world that is fundamentally uncertain. Take it one step further back, you don't even know that you are experiencing reality. You could be delusional, or in the matrix. You can't know.

 

[SpaceYeti]

So it was a soup of amino acids that they lived in? This wasn't deluded by the ocean and had its own energy source and eventually photosynthesis arose?

I'd imagine about as diluted as it is now, but I'm not a biologist or geologist and that's just a guess. The oceans are teaming with life, though, and life is made of the amino acids we're discussing. Abiogenesis as the theory is currently laid out seems to say that this early pre-proto-life-whatever occurred in hydrothermal vents, though, so it's more about the dilution there. That's only one major hypothesis, though. It might have been something else, but biologists seem to tend to think these hydrothermal vents were it.

 

[Hawkeye]

The most recent suggestion is that life may have originated on Mars. This of course is nothing new, but there is a new theory why. It is thought that the most effective minerals for templating RNA would have dissolved in the oceans of an early Earth, but would have been more abundant on Mars.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23872765

 

[GodOfOrder]

The most recent suggestion is that life may have originated on Mars. This of course is nothing new, but there is a new theory why. It is thought that the most effective minerals for templating RNA would have dissolved in the oceans of an early Earth, but would have been more abundant on Mars.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23872765

Yes, this is a definite possibility. But it doesn't really change the question, it just moves us back one planet. We are still left asking how these proteins and early life originally formed, whether it be here on Earth or up there on Mars (or somewhere else).

 

[GodOfOrder]

I'd imagine about as diluted as it is now, but I'm not a biologist or geologist and that's just a guess. The oceans are teaming with life, though, and life is made of the amino acids we're discussing. Abiogenesis as the theory is currently laid out seems to say that this early pre-proto-life-whatever occurred in hydrothermal vents, though, so it's more about the dilution there. That's only one major hypothesis, though. It might have been something else, but biologists seem to tend to think these hydrothermal vents were it.

The thing that has to be kept in mind is that in the early days, this proto life was all that existed. Technically your environment is all of that which you compete with. These early combinations of amino acids were the only game in town, even if their variations were in fact all that existed, they are their only objects of competition and attrition as you say. So the dilution of the seas doesn't matter all that much. The physical environment that these pre-proto-life-whatevers were born into isn't as relevant, because they would have been completely comfortable there. (Also, nobody get confused by my use of personal terms like "comfortable", I don't mean them in a personal sense.)

 

[SpaceYeti]

^ I'd think it's more about their ability to form in the first place. The more there are, the more likely to form bonds.

 

[GodOfOrder]

^ I'd think it's more about their ability to form in the first place. The more there are, the more likely to form bonds.

True enough

 

[Architect]

How exactly did this evolve? Abiogenesis seems unlikely.

This gets more people into hot water than anything else. Common sense is a poor way to think in science. Consider this

• Quantum mechanics seems unlikely
• Black holes seem unlikely
• The Big Bang seems unlikely
• Time dilation (Special Relativity) seems unlikely
• Space distortion (General Relativity) seems unlikely
• The Monty Hall problem seems unlikely
• The Singularity seems unlikely

It goes on forever, our intuition is often incorrect.

The thing to do is take the most likely explanation until proven otherwise. In this case it's abiogenesis.

 

[Black Rose]

This gets more people into hot water than anything else. Common sense is a poor way to think in science. Consider this

• Quantum mechanics seems unlikely
• Black holes seem unlikely
• The Big Bang seems unlikely
• Time dilation (Special Relativity) seems unlikely
• Space distortion (General Relativity) seems unlikely
• The Monty Hall problem seems unlikely
• The Singularity seems unlikely

It goes on forever, our intuition is often incorrect.

The thing to do is take the most likely explanation until proven otherwise. In this case it's abiogenesis.

How do you know this is the case when you must rely on your own incomplete reasoning as to what is or is not likely. I doubt your methods for detecting the proper way of coming to a conclusion relying on your own critical thinking. We should not bias ourselves against others understanding but clearly no one has a monopoly on foundation of knowledge. I conclude from what I see as a case of indeterminate process has little supporting objective evidence. Round pegs do not fit in square holes. Call that false intuition if you like but I seemingly I have no other way of communication for those who simply do not see thing from a higher perspective.

 

[Hawkeye]

How do you know this is the case when you must rely on your own incomplete reasoning as to what is or is not likely. I doubt your methods for detecting the proper way of coming to a conclusion relying on your own critical thinking. We should not bias ourselves against others understanding but clearly no one has a monopoly on foundation of knowledge. I conclude from what I see as a case of indeterminate process has little supporting objective evidence. Round pegs do not fit in square holes. Call that false intuition if you like but I seemingly I have no other way of communication for those who simply do not see thing from a higher perspective.

Using a method that works until it doesn't is a perfectly logical way of working. Not only does it create a more productive way of living, but it's open to improvement all the time.

You can never discover absolute truth and therefore it is fruitless to try.

 

[SpaceYeti]

*facepalm*

I just love the "nobody knows anything absolutely, so my guess-work is exactly as valid as the combined efforts of every scientist in any field!" mantra you find so many neo-spiritualists and Creationists and... well, anybody who doesn't want to give up their irrational beliefs in the face of evidence which contradicts it.

Fine, believe whatever you want to. I'm cool with that. Just don't pretend you're just as knowledgeable as the people who figure out how the shit works for a living.

 

[redbaron]

How do you know this is the case when you must rely on your own incomplete reasoning as to what is or is not likely.

That's exactly why the scientific method exists - we can't trust our own incomplete reasoning.

Which is why knowing what is or isn't is not based on human reasoning in science, but on the predictive capability of theories. This means observation, empirical evidence and repeatability of results.

For example: the concept of escape velocity was how the possibility of existence of black holes was predicted hundreds of years ago. Using the Sun and the Earth as starting points, it was surmised that if these objects retained their same mass, but were much smaller, they would possess an escape velocity greater than the speed of light.

To be exact, at its current density the Earth would need to be 1.8mm in radius to achieve this.

Schwarzschild radius for further reading.

This was before the concept of special and general relativity were even known about. This is an example of a predictive model allowing us to identify possible aspects of reality, even though it goes against what would be considered common sense.

I doubt your methods for detecting the proper way of coming to a conclusion relying on your own critical thinking.

As above, conclusions are not reliant on any one person's critical thinking. It's why scientists run so many tests and experiments and their work is published in peer reviewed studies.

We should not bias ourselves against others understanding but clearly no one has a monopoly on foundation of knowledge.

I'm not sure who this is directed at, or the point you're trying to make.

Before you said that our reasoning is incomplete, now you say we shouldn't be biased towards others understanding.

This is where you and I obviously fundamentally disagree. I'm bias against everyone's opinions being wrong, unless they're presented as the logical endpoint of a predictive model, or they can demonstrate the observations that have lead to this conclusion.

At this point, I consider their opinions as PLAUSIBLE. Not true or correct, only plausible.

I conclude from what I see as a case of indeterminate process has little supporting objective evidence.

300 years ago we had no objective evidence for photosynthesis, star formation or atoms either.

The simple fact is that a lack of evidence is not an argument against...anything really. There's a reason burden of proof exists in more than just the scientific field. The argument you're making, that the lack of proof indicates a higher power, is poorly thought out. To draw a comparison on using a lack of evidence to support a claim:

'I believe Jack is a murderer, because there's no evidence to say that he isn't.'

This type of thinking is why they used to tie women to boulders and throw them into lakes - to discern if they're witches or not.

Thankfully society has realised that citing non-evidence to support claims is stupid, and has intelligently decided that to prosecute someone, you need to find actual evidence.

 

[Black Rose]

I'm not sure who this is directed at, or the point you're trying to make.

Before you said that our reasoning is incomplete, now you say we shouldn't be biased towards others understanding.

This is where you and I obviously fundamentally disagree. I'm bias against everyone's opinions being wrong, unless they're presented as the logical endpoint of a predictive model, or they can demonstrate the observations that have lead to this conclusion.

At this point, I consider their opinions as PLAUSIBLE. Not true or correct, only plausible.

Empirically the earth does not revolve around the sun but I understand this is not the truth. I can understand something yet not be able to communicate it this does not mean I am wrong. It is not my opinion that logic is inconsistent with reality it is that logic must not relay on axioms in a system that does not consist of assumed conditions instead of absolute intuition. Truth should have answers for what I know a priori. Clinging to demonstrability as the standard by which we know is applicable to axiomatic systems but fail in recalcitrance for those who seek the phenomenology of thought. Rather than collectivizing what I wish is the case I intend to bring my perspective to those who could appreciate it for what it is.

Already some have seen what I mean others have not. It is not I who must refation the minds of others. I must only do my best to not demean them. I am ignorant on many subjects but I am not conditioned to doubt my stance on an issue when I can go past plausible to immediate certainty that I was grasping what could be the case in validity.

 

[redbaron]

Truth should have answers for what I know a priori.

I'd like to delve into this, because by the definition of being a priori, you don't need answers for it to know that it's true.

Essentially - if you truly know something a priori, what's the point in questioning it?

I am not conditioned to doubt my stance on an issue when I can go past plausible to immediate certainty that I was grasping what could be the case in validity.

This highlights what I consider to be a weakness in thought.

To not doubt yourself and to consider your thoughts as certain is a complete intellectual dead-end.

Have to go to work, so I'll leave it there.

 

[Black Rose]

I'd like to delve into this, because by the definition of being a priori, you don't need answers for it to know that it's true.

Essentially - if you truly know something a priori, what's the point in questioning it?

Truth needs no justification but we must discover it not create it.

This highlights what I consider to be a weakness in thought.

To not doubt yourself and to consider your thoughts as certain is a complete intellectual dead-end.

Have to go to work, so I'll leave it there.

Doubt only works if it comes second not first otherwise it will only cripple you.

 

[crippli]

Doubt only works if it comes second not first otherwise it will only cripple you.

It may depend on your situation. The unconsciousness normally works faster. So if in peril, it may be wise to ease off the ego, if doubt attempt to protrude the train of thought. Foremost, the mind, consciousness and unconsciousness will attempt to protect it self.

I doubt your statement is valid.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Truth needs no justification but we must discover it not create it.



Doubt only works if it comes second not first otherwise it will only cripple you.

Doubt is neither first nor second. It's the flip-side of the coin, the ebb of a cycle. Doubt is the yin to knowledge's yang, for you don't know that you know until you've doubted.

And without the waxed poetics, knowledge is not absolute. Every statement of fact is a statement of probability. You say you know something, you're saying you think this thing is probably the case. You become ever more sure of that which is reasonable, and ever less sure of that which is not, when you doubt. Just don't trap yourself in your doubt. There is an answer, even if you can't quite reach it yet, and denying anything's true will never lead you to that answer. Without the doubt, though, you have not sought truth, you have not tested your ideas against the evidence... you have no idea if they actually answer anything.

 

[redbaron]

Truth needs no justification but we must discover it not create it.

Is this a general statement, or is there an implication you're making here? I think you'll find that most people agree generally, and I do as well. You seem to think someone here is guilty of creating the truth though.

So far the best way we have of discovering the truth is through predictive models.

Doubt only works if it comes second not first otherwise it will only cripple you.

I think I get your point, however I don't agree.

Doubt does the opposite of cripple. The capacity for honest meta cognition is one of the things I value most highly in people.

 

[Black Rose]

Is this a general statement, or is there an implication you're making here? I think you'll find that most people agree generally, and I do as well. You seem to think someone here is guilty of creating the truth though.

So far the best way we have of discovering the truth is through predictive models.

It is a general statement. Creating truth is rationalization which is the word I should have used.

I think I get your point, however I don't agree.

Doubt does the opposite of cripple. The capacity for honest meta cognition is one of the things I value most highly in people.

You only quoted two sentences when I had a paragraph response to your paragraph.

Meta cognition works by having propositions not without them but self doubt fails if you don't even believe that you have good reason for your knowledge. Do you doubt the sun will rise every evening at sun set? Is your reliance on your self just as flaky. When do you definitely know you have the Truth?

 

[Black Rose]

I don't mean to imply that someone is rationalizing.

 

[Architect]

How do you know this is the case when you must rely on your own incomplete reasoning as to what is or is not likely. I doubt your methods for detecting the proper way of coming to a conclusion relying on your own critical thinking. We should not bias ourselves against others understanding but clearly no one has a monopoly on foundation of knowledge.

Right, that's why we work in teams.

 

[redbaron]

You only quoted two sentences when I had a paragraph response to your paragraph.

You initially only quoted one section of my post when I had four.

To note, this isn't relevant. The reason I only responded to one sentence, was because the rest of your paragraph was worded very generally and there's not really anything I could have discussed - unless you're willing to define what a system built on, 'absolute intuition' is (because it sounds very similar to the system religion is built on - 'I KNOW God is real because I feel it.)

Also this isn't really about logic being reliant on axiomatic systems either. This is really a discussion about the effectiveness of using models with predictive capability to learn about reality.

This was a direct segue about how abiogenesis defies, 'common sense'. However this really highlights the beauty of predictive models - they allow us to think outside the scope of our, 'limited reasoning' and to consider things that might not initially seem plausible.

Meta cognition works by having propositions not without them but self doubt fails if you don't even believe that you have good reason for your knowledge. Do you doubt the sun will rise every evening at sun set? Is your reliance on your self just as flaky. When do you definitely know you have the Truth?

Do I doubt the sun will rise every evening? This isn't relevant.

Is my reliance on myself flaky? I need to understand the context of this before I can answer. What do you mean by, 'flaky'?

When do I definitely know I have the truth? Never. I never assume I have the truth.

I doubt myself at every step of everything in my life, because I know that I'm fallible and prone to error. This isn't crippling, it's liberating. I know that I will make mistakes no matter what I do, and I accept this. But does not being perfect necessitate that I give up? No.

This self-doubt drives me to discover and to learn. To improve myself in whatever I put my mind to - the fact that I can't ever know something excites me, because I'll never be so smart as to not be able to learn. Which means that my entire life is just a process of discovery (and sometimes, rediscovery) of the universe, myself and those around me.

That excites me, and if by some miracle I ever get to the point that I know everything there is to know in the entire universe? That's the day I kill myself.

 

[Black Rose]

I don't see it in principle but it might be. The universe may be infinite which I think it is. Where do the laws come from? We exist in a finite set. Infinite potentiality cannot come into actuality.

 

[redbaron]

A fair question, I'd speculate that we live in one universe out of many multiverses, and that if so, the laws for each universe would and would be expected to differ between each. That's one of many possible speculations.

There's a fundamental difference in our approaches to this concept though. You're reasoning using common sense: "this cannot come into actuality". While you might be right - it's an intellectual dead-end and serves no purpose beyond satisfying your desire to, 'know' things.

I'm applying the capability of predictive models to speculate, and to increase understanding. For example: I speculate that we are one of many multiverses, all of which spring into existence and potentially have variable sets of laws governing them. To understand if this is even possible, I need to understand quantum mechanics. Upon learning more about quantum mechanics, I discover that not only is it possible for particles to, 'pop' into existence temporarily: it's actually expected.

At this point you're dismissing me as crazy, but that's really the beauty of it - reality is not realistic. Our brains are simply not designed to understand things like quantum mechanics. Which is why we use these predictive models, because we need them to be able to think in terms that we previously wouldn't have been able to.

This is essentially the basis of mathematics - a complete archive of predictive models that allow us to discern information that common sense doesn't allow us to do.

So, will I ever discover, 'Where do the laws come from?' - probably not. Who cares though? It's a question that in all honesty, nobody can quantify an answer for.

The reality is that reality doesn't make sense to the human mind.

 

[Black Rose]

A fair question, I'd speculate that we live in one universe out of many multiverses, and that if so, the laws for each universe would and would be expected to differ between each. That's one of many possible speculations.

There is the possibility of infinite levels by dimension. There are more than three. ordinal number. For a set of 3 dimensions be infinite in volume are cardinals.

But what is inside those dimensions (substances) is subject to the incompleteness theorem of patterns. Hilbert space contain all possible configuration inside dimension.

There's a fundamental difference in our approaches to this concept though. You're reasoning using common sense: "this cannot come into actuality". While you might be right - it's an intellectual dead-end and serves no purpose beyond satisfying your desire to, 'know' things.

The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once.

Superposition on the space of a television means all possible pictures exist and occupy the same space. Displacement collapses the wave function with the observer so that one signal reaches the television even though all stations infinity exist. One station is viewed.

I'm applying the capability of predictive models to speculate, and to increase understanding. For example: I speculate that we are one of many multiverses, all of which spring into existence and potentially have variable sets of laws governing them. To understand if this is even possible, I need to understand quantum mechanics. Upon learning more about quantum mechanics, I discover that not only is it possible for particles to, 'pop' into existence temporarily: it's actually expected.

And this creates pattern in spacetime, patterns like atoms but space is not 100% filled with atoms. There is a finite amount. The observer chooses of all possibilities(potentiality) one.

At this point you're dismissing me as crazy, but that's really the beauty of it - reality is not realistic. Our brains are simply not designed to understand things like quantum mechanics. Which is why we use these predictive models, because we need them to be able to think in terms that we previously wouldn't have been able to.

Abstraction by the mind are temporal but prediction of that sort rely on deterministic Newtonian-ism. Predict what your mind will think next and you do see where the problem is. Self modeling is always incomplete.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_probability

This is essentially the basis of mathematics - a complete archive of predictive models that allow us to discern information that common sense doesn't allow us to do.

Intuition is above both of those. It comes from pure mathematical truths.

So, will I ever discover, 'Where do the laws come from?' - probably not. Who cares though? It's a question that in all honesty, nobody can quantify an answer for.

If there is an infinite number of planets in this dimension and in others it is inevitable that reality will be fully understood by an infinite set of minds.

The reality is that reality doesn't make sense to the human mind.

It has been known from the beginning of eternity and shall always be known.

Auṃ - That supreme Brahman is infinite, and this conditioned Brahman is infinite. The infinite proceeds from infinite. If you subtract the infinite from the infinite, the infinite remains alone.

 

[redbaron]

The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once.

Why must there be a reason for time?

Intuition is above both of those. It comes from pure mathematical truths.

This brings me back to the point of why I only quoted one sentence from one of your previous posts - you have to define what you mean by intuition because you clearly have your own meaning for it.

I'm fine with this, so long as you define it. If you don't this discussion leads nowhere.

It has been known from the beginning of eternity and shall always be known.

So...now you're agreeing with me?

Legitimate question by the way, because it seemed like before you weren't aware of the futility of trying to question reality using common sense. Now you understand?

 

[Black Rose]

Why must there be a reason for time?

It is grasped by the mind easy.

This brings me back to the point of why I only quoted one sentence from one of your previous posts - you have to define what you mean by intuition because you clearly have your own meaning for it.

I'm fine with this, so long as you define it. If you don't this discussion leads nowhere.

http://www.intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=387741&postcount=2

So...now you're agreeing with me?

Legitimate question by the way, because it seemed like before you weren't aware of the futility of trying to question reality using common sense. Now you understand?

I believe in intuition which should not derogatorily be referred to as "common sense"

Architect was the first in this thread to suggest I was biased in that way. I am not using folk logic.

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

Animekitty,

The gross majority of the masses on planet earth are entirely tuned out of the higher frequency you are tuned into.

You can perceive it. (which necessarily means you already perceive the lower frequencies and transcended them). Most can't.

Its just the way it is for now on planet earth. Most of the earthlings who don't get it can't and never will. You probably already know that the degree to which any unperceptive earthling obstinately opposes truth as communicated by one who is tuned in to the higher frequencies is directly proportional to their continuing inability/ incapacity to get it.

Plato's Cave

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platos_cave

Might not be worth your time/ effort? (not to say this thread isn't awesome in its own right and the truths espoused herein weren't worthy of documenting and communicating).

One can't be taught until they have the desire to learn.

 

[Hawkeye]

*facepalm*

I just love the "nobody knows anything absolutely, so my guess-work is exactly as valid as the combined efforts of every scientist in any field!" mantra you find so many neo-spiritualists and Creationists and... well, anybody who doesn't want to give up their irrational beliefs in the face of evidence which contradicts it.

Fine, believe whatever you want to. I'm cool with that. Just don't pretend you're just as knowledgeable as the people who figure out how the shit works for a living.

That's not exactly what I was implying. The same principle applies science in that theories are put forward and experiments are done. Just because experimental evidence supports a theory, it does not necessarily mean that the theory is correct.

Richard Feynman's Rules of Chess analogy is a perfect example of this.

I was pointing out that a benefit to science is it offers the ability to adapt to change unlike religion.

My latter statement regards to if you apply reason as to why things work, there will always be the question "why?" no matter how deep you delve. It is pointless to search for absolute truth because we will never satisfy it. It would be better to continue until we are satisfied with what we know.

However, this is more like an argument of actual infinity vs. potential infinity.

 

[GodOfOrder]

One can't be taught until they have the desire to learn.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdKr1jlDzW4

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdKr1jlDzW4

that "show" is the epitomy of depravity (in terms relevant to this thread: the show promotes thought processes of a distinctly lower order). not going to click on it. don't feel like inputting debasing garbage into my brain today, no thanks.

perhaps if you have another, cleaner source video with which to make your point?

We are all the sum total of what we see/ hear/ think. Best to be careful. My filter isn't perfect but I do try. Just because I'm working on constantly cleaning my filter doesn't mean I ought to give up either.

 

[Hawkeye]

that "show" is the epitomy of depravity (in terms relevant to this thread: the show promotes thought processes of a distinctly lower order). not going to click on it. don't feel like inputting debasing garbage into my brain today, no thanks.

perhaps if you have another, cleaner source video with which to make your point?

We are all the sum total of what we see/ hear/ think. Best to be careful. My filter isn't perfect but I do try. Just because I'm working on constantly cleaning my filter doesn't mean I ought to give up either.

Considering the video is only three seconds in length, I see no point in not clicking it.

It is unwise to brush something aside based on a sweeping generalisation. A filter regarding knowledge should be done post-process as opposed to pre-process; that way you can disregard rubbish instead of missing out on potentially useful data.



If you want clarification as to what the video was in implying simply look at the title.

Ironically, what GodofOrder quoted wasn't actually ironic; it was merely obvious. Then again, as the video was sarcastic, so too could GodofOrder have been.

 

[DrGregoryHouse]

...It is unwise to brush something aside based on a sweeping generalisation...

As a source of enlightenment/ knowledge/ usefulness in anything mental or spiritual "'family' guy" requires as much need to make an exception to a generalization as I might consider the exception of eating my poop before I generally flush it down the toilet once per day.

There is splitting hairs (exception making) and then there is splitting hairs for the sake of splitting hairs. I'm not into the popular 'modern' mental activity of exceptionalizing everything to the point of sacrificing/ dispossessing one's own mind and body on the alter of ceaseless abstractions.

Order excludes over-exception making. Higher Order demands categorization and categorization demands generalizations. This is how exceptions gain their existence in the first place.

A world of exceptions less generalizations is completely ephemeral/ abstract. The balance must be in the favor of generalizations for a veritable existent possession of one's own mind and body.

And FWIW...if the 'family' guy video was 3 nanoseconds in length, I wouldn't submit myself to it if given my own free will. Any less than if I would consume 3 pathological mircoorganisms if given the invitation (eg staphylococcus aureus) instead of 3,000+.