Life on Mars?

H-
your logic is a little off. Let me assume NOT GOD!You set it up correctly but once I try to think if this is an either or it MIGHT not be!!Namely a very very very smart civilization seeded life here and once we KNOW this it would be LIKE WHAT YOU MAY HEAR RELIGIONISTS SAY O F god but only THEN we would have knowledge that we did not think correctly but we can not know this LOGICALLY before this very fact"".There are really deep historical issues in "abiogenesis" which I have not ventured a foot in the edge of this water on this board but perhaps now is this time. There may be NO other environement than this and yet whatever created the godLIKE intelligent thing created it provided these "gods" are able to communicate THAT to you or me!I hope that made clearer what it is we can only visually make clearer.

I think your reasoning is more probable than a simple faith but it was me not you who assumed there was NOT a god.I heard Eigen lecture in Bake Lab at Cornell about this chemical thing but beause I ALSO heard Pauling LEcture in the same room where what HE had to say was only about how connected any bunch of chemicals was (density) AND that his response to questions was only about whether there is any cabalistic influence of the #5 in Euclids elements I remained unconvinced. Yes you are correct it is not "much of leap" I likely only changed seats on those two occassions.I am not ready to discuss "forces" in this context yet so rest assured you have answered well for me at least for now as I am would only be able to speak momentarily of Einstein on MACH and it is far from clear should life HAVE to have all the inertia INERT gave Einstein adjectivially. I have never seen any one on the web reply to this question next of mine , "Do seeds fall to the earth or the sun or some other orbit?" In a similiar development Einstein wanted to know how an electron re-enters a Bohr orbit. Yes, Eigen's reasoning is reasonable but Crick seems to have taken from this work that selection of RNA means that there is no intellectual base THEN for vital forces. I would rather discuss Weinberg on Wolfram via a wrong Feynmann but that is just me as a physical chemist which I am less than my bioloigcally centered understanding that doubts any existence no matter how probable of "other life". Yes life may exist on Mars but there will not be martians unless they can communicate to me in my own understanding of PHYSICAL REALITY. Debate is something else but I think that negative and positive curvature and negative and positive pressure combined provided a potential for cross level effects that Gould thinks is BOTH not a ding an sich but some kind of thing. Being able to read German may see the Causcus Mnts from here.

And if life is found in there then I will be able to extend my notion of Croizat finite#baselines to Mars and perhaps document my intuition that infinite baseline representations are possible symbollically which I have been hard pressed to present with only Earth data. My feeling is that it really would remand life on Saturn or beyond though to get something really new in this stale bread of a science we call biology. The twists and turns on Mars may be too similar to Earth's to be able to get DeltaT from it any differntly.

No, I doubt it highly. I once tried to explain this in some threads on cosmology a while back but before I came across Cohen's work on Newton I was visually influenced in a Kantian question as to the non-planar attitude of the asteriod belt such that anything beyond Mars seemed unsual philosophically for me but finding ICE wayYYYYYYYYYYYYYY beyond Pluto has indeed disabused me of that norm but seeing that indeed in my lifetime we may find a procaryote on MARS I am thinking ahead to any gene sequences we might be able to extract and wondering if 1-D info thus garnered might be able to extend Kant's question to the reader as to why we have 3-D space. I think that if Einstein IS wrong then this kind of data could subsequently enable us to retrodict time changes as to distributions beyond the earth-mars area, much like we do with protein families today. Sorry to have mislead you.

iI-IB Cohen of Harvard came out with a new edition of Newton's Principia where the symbol "h" was discussed but also he CONCLUDED (I think too narrowly given his jacket comment on the book THE AMBIGUOUS FROG)that Newton was ACTUALLY discussing "electricity" when he talked of "spirit"(aka Hawksbee for Bridgman's Huygens (that dreaed letter not scarlet agin.).
III'll have to track that down if you are really interested, I think it was in the C of Reason? Anyway Kant asked "why is space 3-D" and the question and subsequent text impressed me. I now think that future 1-D info may simply only recategorize and NOT answer the question, thus Kant's question stands for me but many since Russel have writ it off, wrongly again I think.
3-E could have been off BECAUSE the atom emiision must be a clock and we can have distant simultaneity in group theory population genetics potentially should I actually demonstrate this with a reduction of the two way to a one way Bridgman type operationalism of theory in biologiacl change which may be back to E's idea of Lornez electron instead of photon stat mechanics due to dimensional analysis of heat in genes (metabolism vs replication not as local logic currently dictates).

The question BECOMES "Kantian" for me not by some preadapted imperative or not but simply by visualizing the SOLAR SYSTEM. Newton never gave me as reader a "visual" sense of its extant but only the extent of parts that make that up. This is why I rarely (compared to disussing the information across generations bioloigaclly) can incline my mind to cosmological issues of larger exent.