Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home pageAstronomics discounts for Cloudy Nights members
Get a Cloudy Nights T-Shirt Submit a Review / Article

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green GuÖ uh, User

Speciality Forums >> Science! Astronomy & Space Exploration, and Others

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | (show all)
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: origin of life [Re: Jarad]
      #5704250 - 02/27/13 08:51 PM

Quote:

They are carriers of information from point A to point B, not receivers of it (which is what I presume you mean by an observer).

Jarad




Although it's hard to see how they could carry information without receiving it.

EXCEPT, as you said, the transfer of energy/information is their entire existence. The "observer" in this case is that which absorbs the photon. It's objective in the sense that it's likely to be an object. And it has in principle, at least, a predictably consistent response to such an encounter.

I'm not sure how that applies to a living observer, though. We can be "objective" about our observations in the sense that our communications concerning them are strictly descriptive, rigorous, and mechanistic.

But the minute we say "Oh, WOW!", we've violated objectivity. Oh, well. I don't consider that to be a defect in my reaction, at least.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
dickbill
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 09/30/08

Re: origin of life [Re: llanitedave]
      #5705099 - 02/28/13 10:53 AM

Maybe we can define 'objective' when the 'entirety of the information is transfered'. That should be the case for a photon but not for a human, as when we observe a mushroom, the entirety of the information contained in the mushroom is not transfered to the human observer, and this amount of information varies from observer to observer, therefore the non-objectvity.
In information theory the total amount of information is dependant of the probability of observing one particular bit of information (an the log of the number of all the items of information). For most untrained observers, the most likely element of information is the shape and the color (of the mushroom for example). But let's imagine the shapes and colors of different mushroom species vary very little, then the most likely item of information that untrained observers retrieve from observing mushrooms, when trying to identify their species and edibility, actually contains very little information regarding their toxicity. Only trained experts, able to retrieve small differences, unlikely to be perceived by untrained observers, might be able to identify the correct species. So who will decide who has retrieved the most information? Natural Selection, since the poisonous mushrooms have killed all the non-experts.

Natural Selection acts as a filter of 'objectivity', which, combined with 'Evolution' (=constant measurement of the environment), provides a darwinian non-casusal mechanism to explain the increase in complexity during evolution.
What's puzzling is indeed that human observers are part of the Universe, so the universe is observing himself, like a photon going to point A to point A. That's, IMO, when Evolution starts to depart from pure non causal darwinism to something else. Some may argue that an 'infinitely small part of universe' is not 'the Universe' but we are a growing part, at some point it will make little difference.
If you believe in the concept of Noospshere,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noosphere
the Noosphere is expending. The definition in Wikipedia restrains the Noosphere to human consciousness but in my personnal opinion, all living creature are concerned. While watching a show on dolphins, i thought that in the next 10 million years it is unlikely that they will grow arms and legs since they are already so well adapted to their environment, the only thing left for them to evolve is to increase their sphere of consciousness. Maybe ants will do that too, maybe mushrooms too in a billion years from now.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
StarWars
Mr. Postmaster Man
*****

Reged: 11/26/03

Loc: At the Gym >Spudtastic<
Re: origin of life [Re: dickbill]
      #5705245 - 02/28/13 12:22 PM

Quote:


If you believe in the concept of Noospshere,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noosphere
the Noosphere is expending. The definition in Wikipedia restrains the Noosphere to human consciousness but in my personnal opinion, all living creature are concerned. While watching a show on dolphins, i thought that in the next 10 million years it is unlikely that they will grow arms and legs since they are already so well adapted to their environment, the only thing left for them to evolve is to increase their sphere of consciousness. Maybe ants will do that too, maybe mushrooms too in a billion years from now.






Biological entities don't decide to grow lungs or feet just because..

This process requires a Intelligent design of some type..


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
moynihan
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 07/22/03

Loc: Lake Michigan Watershed
Re: origin of life [Re: StarWars]
      #5705692 - 02/28/13 04:35 PM

Noosphere is a spiritual concept if i remember correctly, (Vladimir Vernadsky and Teilhard de Chardin). It is not a scientific concept. Neither is intelligent design.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pess
(Title)
*****

Reged: 09/12/07

Loc: Toledo, Ohio
Re: origin of life [Re: StarWars]
      #5707334 - 03/01/13 03:00 PM

Quote:

As for photons being observers, the only problem is that since they travel at the speed of light, from their point of view time pretty much stops. In their frame of reference, they are emitted from wherever they start, then instantaneously absorbed wherever they stop with no time or distance in between, even though to our frame it may look like billions of years (and billions of light years) passed in between. They are carriers of information from point A to point B, not receivers of it (which is what I presume you mean by an observer).




So you are saying Tide & Time wait for no man but are perfectly happy waiting for photons?

Pesse (Doesn't sound rightly fair) Mist


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jarad
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/28/03

Loc: Atlanta, GA
Re: origin of life [Re: Pess]
      #5707387 - 03/01/13 03:38 PM

Quote:

So you are saying Tide & Time wait for no man but are perfectly happy waiting for photons?




Actually, it's more the other way around. From the photons' point of view, all of the tides and time happened instantaneously. They blinked and missed the universe.

Jarad


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
minos
member


Reged: 10/17/12

Re: origin of life [Re: Jarad]
      #5709936 - 03/03/13 04:49 AM

Of course, there are natural laws around us and we are not going to abandon our own perspective, only because thats what we believe!!We will abandon it only if we find a new model first, that describes what we see around us in a simpler,better way , that agrees with experimental and observable data!And of course, a single experiment in which a new theory fails ,is enough to disprove it, no matter how many experiments agree with it!
Of course, a scientist must have a strong intuition, to realise what is important.
Personally, i am a fan of simplicity.I always believed that the more complicated a scientific work is, the more likely it is false.Also, if you try to support lies, the effort would be endless.
Anyway, i want to add to my previous:
We showed that if scientific experiments support the notion that there is only one true observer in nature, the light, and for light there is only one law in nature, the second law of thermodynamics, and what we perceive are just projections of the laws, due to the fact we are part inside the system that makes us subjective observers from a certain point and after, we would expect that:
In the heart of massive gravitational objects, where the attractive forces between molecules are huge, we would expect that due to kinetic energy and due to the limitations of quantum mechanics, there would be a huge opposition to this natural attractive force, that would lead to a huge release of electromagnetic radiation.So we would expect that while observing galaxies, their center to be brighter, instead of being black because of a black hole!and of course thats what happening!
In other words,for light, the entropy of a galaxy is always decreasing


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
minos
member


Reged: 10/17/12

Re: origin of life [Re: minos]
      #5709941 - 03/03/13 04:57 AM

oups!!sorry!!
increasing


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ravenous
professor emeritus


Reged: 11/14/09

Loc: UK
Re: origin of life [Re: minos]
      #5713915 - 03/05/13 06:18 AM

Quote:

We showed that if scientific experiments support the notion that there is only one true observer in nature, the light, and for light there is only one law in nature,



If the photon experiences only one law of nature (the second law), then it is a very poor choice of observer.

So far you've said that life is random chemical reactions (agreed) and entropy increases (agreed). I don't see what the question is.
Quote:

I am not a physicist,



Well neither am I (just an engineer, and a slightly educated ape) but I suggest just starting by studying a bit more of physics helps (and not reading pop science books). There's enough wonder for most people there without trying to propose alternative laws of physics.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jarad
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/28/03

Loc: Atlanta, GA
Re: origin of life [Re: minos]
      #5713931 - 03/05/13 06:57 AM

Quote:

We showed that if scientific experiments support the notion that there is only one true observer in nature, the light, and for light there is only one law in nature, the second law of thermodynamics



Um, I am not sure how you showed that,and scientific experiments do not support that light is the only "true observer".

Quote:

In the heart of massive gravitational objects, where the attractive forces between molecules are huge, we would expect that due to kinetic energy and due to the limitations of quantum mechanics, there would be a huge opposition to this natural attractive force, that would lead to a huge release of electromagnetic radiation.



Again, not sure how this follows, unless you are simply pointing out that things that are hot (i.e. with high kinetic energy) emit light (blackbody radiation).

Of course, in stars most of the heat comes from nuclear fusion. Simple compression of the gas will produce some heat due to gravity and kinetic energy (which is what I think you are describing), and this heat is what helps ignite the fusion in the first place, but it isn't sufficient to produce the amount of energy we see stars giving off.

Quote:

So we would expect that while observing galaxies, their center to be brighter, instead of being black because of a black hole!and of course thats what happening!





The center of galaxies appear bright because the stars are generally most dense there. The black hole itself is so small we cannot resolve them directly, and when they are quiescent they won't have any measureable effect on the brightness of the galaxy core (too small). When they are accreting, the gas falling in can actually outshine the whole galaxy (and in this case, it is due to compression and kinetic energy as the gas falls in).

Jarad


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pess
(Title)
*****

Reged: 09/12/07

Loc: Toledo, Ohio
Re: origin of life [Re: Jarad]
      #5716336 - 03/06/13 12:58 PM

Quote:

In the heart of massive gravitational objects, where the attractive forces between molecules are huge, we would expect that due to kinetic energy and due to the limitations of quantum mechanics, there would be a huge opposition to this natural attractive force, that would lead to a huge release of electromagnetic radiation.




Pesse (Yup, it is called a 'Supernova') Mist


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
SteveMushynsky
member


Reged: 02/21/13

Loc: Syracuse, NY area (Central NY)
Re: origin of life [Re: Jarad]
      #5734448 - 03/15/13 04:25 PM

Custom viruses can now be made from scratch as delivery agents for included drug molecules and can be specifically tailored to attack cancer cells. Food for thought.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
SteveMushynsky
member


Reged: 02/21/13

Loc: Syracuse, NY area (Central NY)
Re: origin of life [Re: SteveMushynsky]
      #5734481 - 03/15/13 04:48 PM

Quote:

Biological entities don't decide to grow lungs or feet just because



Actually, given a potential advantage in developing same and unlimited time to do so, yes they do.

Quote:

This process requires a Intelligent design of some type



This is a political/religious solution in search of an answer.
God is by definition ineffable.
Intelligent design is hubris - Assuming the ineffable can be 'effed' according to a political stance by choosing to ignore the knowledge achieved through science.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jarad
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/28/03

Loc: Atlanta, GA
Re: origin of life [Re: SteveMushynsky]
      #5734516 - 03/15/13 05:13 PM

Quote:

Custom viruses can now be made from scratch as delivery agents for included drug molecules and can be specifically tailored to attack cancer cells. Food for thought.



Actually, we aren't quite to that point yet. We can modify existing viruses to add a drug molecule as a payload, or modify them to preferentially attack cancer cells. Designing one from scratch is still beyond our ability. And a lot of the modification is by "lab evolution", where we randomly mutate then select for the ones that do what we want, not by denovo design.

Jarad


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
SteveMushynsky
member


Reged: 02/21/13

Loc: Syracuse, NY area (Central NY)
Re: origin of life [Re: Jarad]
      #5744241 - 03/19/13 11:14 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Custom viruses can now be made from scratch as delivery agents for included drug molecules and can be specifically tailored to attack cancer cells. Food for thought.




Actually, we aren't quite to that point yet. We can modify existing viruses to add a drug molecule as a payload, or modify them to preferentially attack cancer cells. Designing one from scratch is still beyond our ability. And a lot of the modification is by "lab evolution", where we randomly mutate then select for the ones that do what we want, not by denovo design.




Quote:

Scientists Build Virus from Scratch
Thu Jul 11, 2:36 PM ET
By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Using only a genetic map as a guide, U.S. researchers said on Thursday they had built a polio ( news - web sites) virus from scratch and used it to infect and paralyze lab mice.
http://research.lifeboat.com/virus.htm<br />
<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">




It appears we have crossed that line already and combined techniques would seem to be conceptually possible as all components have been effected separately, at least.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jarad
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/28/03

Loc: Atlanta, GA
Re: origin of life [Re: SteveMushynsky]
      #5744595 - 03/20/13 07:36 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Custom viruses can now be made from scratch as delivery agents for included drug molecules and can be specifically tailored to attack cancer cells. Food for thought.




Actually, we aren't quite to that point yet. We can modify existing viruses to add a drug molecule as a payload, or modify them to preferentially attack cancer cells. Designing one from scratch is still beyond our ability. And a lot of the modification is by "lab evolution", where we randomly mutate then select for the ones that do what we want, not by denovo design.




Quote:

Scientists Build Virus from Scratch
Thu Jul 11, 2:36 PM ET
By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Using only a genetic map as a guide, U.S. researchers said on Thursday they had built a polio ( news - web sites) virus from scratch and used it to infect and paralyze lab mice.
http://research.lifeboat.com/virus.htm




It appears we have crossed that line already and combined techniques would seem to be conceptually possible as all components have been effected separately, at least.




What they did is synthesize the known DNA sequence of the polio virus, then put that DNA into an in vitro transcription and translation system to create whole viruses. What they produced was a polio virus that does exactly what a natural polio virus does. There was no design of new or modified functions. It doesn't even require that we understand the function of the sequences and proteins being copied.

I was talking about being able to design something to do what we want it to do. It's the difference between a photocopy machine and an artist - the copier can only copy what it has seen, the artist can create what he wants to see.

It's still an impressive feat, but it's not what I was talking about.

Jarad


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
minos
member


Reged: 10/17/12

Re: origin of life [Re: Jarad]
      #5808546 - 04/19/13 12:13 PM

QUALITIES OF TRUTH BY INTUITION

When somebody is gazing at the stars, there are times that he really feels he escapes gravity and he is detached from everyday life and its problems, realizing how unimportant they are compared with the magnitude and greatness of the universe!!And this is really the most amazing feeling one can have ,that even complicating thoughts (like what is the universe, where did we come from and where are we going), can be incredibly relaxing .
And because I know that everybody that loves astronomy, is by definition a curious man, I want to contribute some food for the brain for these magical moments of stargazing.
SoÖhere are my thoughts about TRUTH:
My intuition dictates me that thuth has the following qualities:
1)Truth is simple.The more fundamental a fact is, the less words someone needs to explain it.Just the key fact, and suddenly everything makes sense.Partial facts or wrong facts generates an endless effort to explain things, filling endless amount of pages, endless discussions with the final result of a headache.
Everytime a truth is found, everybody wonders:Wow!It was so easy.I canít believe no one thought of it before.
Itís a myth that finding out or realizing the truth is a product of genious.Contrary to solving a difficult mathematical problem or creating a complicate work of art, figuring out the truth is not difficult at all in terms of complexity.Most of the times, truth is far too simple and plain that our brain donít even suspect to check at that direction.
2)There is a fundamental misconception in our way of thinking , because we are so small and so limited.
3)Truth can be reached.There is a wide acceptance that some questions can never be answered.I cannot agree with that.If thuth is out there and it exists, it makes it reachable.
Any thoughts??


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Otto Piechowski
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 09/20/05

Loc: Lexington, KY
Re: origin of life [Re: minos]
      #5808657 - 04/19/13 01:15 PM

I recall the Indiana Jones movie where Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) is lecturing to an archaeology class. He makes the statement that archaeology is a science and is therefore interested in facts. He then adds that if someone wants to obtain truth, he/she should go down the hall way to so-and-so's philosophy class.

I believe truth is a transcendental property of Being. It is a quality which exists wherever/whenever existence is present and is in the thing which exists. As human awareness and cognition turns its attention to the thing which exists, it slowly comes to an appreciation of the truth which is there; that appreciation is the realm of fact. Fact, at times, asymptotically approaches truth; but the whole truth; never.

To summarize, truth is much more a quality than a quantity. Truth has objective existence; extra-mental existence, but, though objective, truth only exists in those things which exist.

Basically, all of the above is the perspective of that philosophical metaphysics called moderate realism.

One can retain the perspective, yet go beyond moderate realism, by then venturing into theology. Simply, truth exists primarily in the source of existence (God), and secondarily in those things created by that source and whose existence is dependent on the presence of that primary source.

Otto


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Joad
Wordsmith
*****

Reged: 03/22/05

Re: origin of life [Re: Otto Piechowski]
      #5808698 - 04/19/13 01:35 PM

When you already know the "truth" in advance through faith rather than rational philosophy, you will always end up in the same circular reasoning, as you do here, Otto. This is not philosophy. I suggest that you read some modern philosophers, not only Scholastics from the Middle Ages and theologians.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
shawnhar
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 06/25/10

Loc: Knoxville, TN
Re: origin of life [Re: Joad]
      #5808739 - 04/19/13 02:06 PM

It must be really hard to give up those magic beans...

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | (show all)


Extra information
0 registered and 3 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  LivingNDixie, FirstSight, JayinUT 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 8468

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics