The first Universal Law of the Universe

Define "entangled," please.

Are you referring to quantum entangled systems or just knots of stuff clumped together?

Though a quantum entangled system has quantum properties in common over light years of distance, something macro-"entangled" systems do not have, you count their entanglement as similar to non-quantum systems.

I can accept this.

For what purpose?

We know there are forces which cause stuff to clump together. No mystery there.

Or is there?

You know this stuff. You are reaching for something different, me thinks.

So ... like what?

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

All subatomic particles are constantly flipping between different aspects/states, entangled from one to the next through some extra-dimensional space/time or equivalent factor. This causes changes in the more macro environment that result in seemingly minor changes, but which cause macro tanglements

No. Quantum entanglement is a very specific beast and differs from combined particles held together by the EM and Strong forces. Quantum entangled particles are exceptionally sensitive and will decohere (lose their entangled attributes) as soon as they encounter any other particle anywhere at any time and cannot be reestablished without a great deal of effort.

Unentangled particles such as in a rock are vibrating constantly but held in place by the much stronger EM and strong nuclear forces and remain stable for billions of eons without much change.

Understanding. Free the thinking from static models to one of constant change rippling through space/time.

We understand already without abandoning our super accurate models.

You are not freeing your thinking by entertaining unevidenced speculation when we already have quite accurate models that already explain with a great deal of confidence all about these changes rippling through space/time.

Those forces change when Neutron → Proton + Electron due to flipping quarks/leptons for example.

Under specific circumstances in energy fields an up-quark will transpose to a down-quark as long as most attributes like momentum and energy are conserved. But the energy levels of the weak force need to be quite specific to cause such a change and though this may be a common occurance it is not a constant one.

BTW, the electron is considered a fundamental particle without any finer constituents.

Up quarks have +2/3 electric charge, while down quarks have -1/3 charge. Going from proton (Up Up Down) to neutron (Up Down Down) goes from +1 charge to 0 charge. But electric charge must be conservation so some negative charge like an electron must be absorbed in the process.

But we already know this and how it works. Are you trying to fix something that isn't broken?

This new outlook does not give us any insights we do not already have with our present models and only creates confusion by supposing interactions that are not evident in our observations.

It's useless, RAZD. We already have something much better called QCD.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This seems like a bit of a bait-and-switch fallacy, you describe inorganic chemistry in the attempt to make it represent "pre-organic" chemistry.

And he succeeded.

Parsimoniously we can simply refer to it as inorganic chemistry. Yes, I concede inorganic chemistry exists. I concede organic chemistry exists. I want to see something inbetween such as the creation of a pre-cell or whatever. There are no examples, just at there are no examples of DNA coming about by entanglement.

Right now, in all our chemical knowledge - organic, inorganic, pre-organic, pre-biologic, organometallic - the thing we see is that only life seems chemically capable of spawning and we don’t know why. Life is a most talented chemist. Far better than we, right now.

We cannot, right now, put our most wondrous concoctions of chemicals together such that long-chain reactions would sustain themselves indefinably when fed, as evolution demands, the right environment for the right amount of time. We cannot, yet, create life of that definition, as inadequate as it may be.

But our chemistry, like all the other sciences, is exceptionally detailed, tested and growing stronger.

We’ll get there. And when we do you will need to find some other deep shadow of ignorance in which to hide your god.

Or do you just want me to say, "Yes RAZD, I will accept everything you asserted because you wrote it down."

That sounds rather stupid. RAZD would expect critical feedback not idolization.

You guys did that already with that Bible/Quran thing of yours and look where that got you. Nothing but misery and blood ever since.

I mean dumb is dumb, Mike, but com’on.

I would advise you don’t do that anymore.

Wouldn't that be the same as accepting the assertion I am superman's son simply because someone states it?

And yet you accept the precepts of your faith on precisely that basis. Someone wrote it down in the blessed holy Pick-One book of religiosity so, by golly, it’s just gotta be true.

(Wait … creationist logic.)

So, hey, Mike, can you prove you are not superman’s son? Gotta be hard evidence. Something I can hold. And no missing links.

I like playing on your side of the street.

Perhaps if it's an "evolutionists only" type topic, he meant the statement to be accepted as factual. But I need personally, to see some facts that would indicate there is any truth to the statement. It seems to me, SOME of the statement is true.

Well, technically, he wasn’t all right, but the spirit parts, not all of which I will reject, was quite well done.

Doesn’t matter. Poor creationists are going to soon be looking for a new hidey hole to point to saying “he’s in there.”

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

The entanglement of these pre-existing pre-biotic into biotics means mixing in proximity to allow the further entanglements. Natural caldrons of puddles perhaps.

Temporary though very long-term decreases in disorder which entropy not just allows but may in fact require in regions of thermodynamic excess. But natural cauldrons of puddles is a much better way to describe it.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

That is precisely why deductive logic leads us to the notion that because "life" has no sentience, and the chemistry is more sophisticated than the human level, that the talent must be coming from a greater intelligence.

Isn’t that also the logic that led some to believe in witches? Yes. Ignorance begets faith.

We don’t know how/why something happens so it must be gods or devils.

The part you keep missing is the sophistication of the human level continually improves, not just for understanding witchcraft, but for understanding the chemistry of abiogenesis among a whole lot of other sciences enjoying a golden age of knowledge and discovery today.

We’ll figure it out. And the greater intelligence will be, as it has always been, us.

… you are arguing a better case for that than I am.

Rather low bar don't ya think? You should be embarrassed by that.

To say "life is a most talented chemist" is to commit anthropomorphism by giving chemistry features of a sentient agent.

A useful literary device. Helps to build a picture in the mind's eye. Too bad it seems wasted on some.

I don't idolize a book anyway, there you go again giving a book sentient properties.

Oh, stop, Mike. Of course it’s the book. It tells you what to believe and why. It tells you the stories that you take on faith regardless of the reality. Without that book, Mike, you have no catechism. Of course you venerate the book. It is the foundation on which you build your entire religious fantasy.

Without the book, Mike … well with your mindset you’d probably be into quantum crystals, pyramid power, scientology, homeopathy, republican politics or some other pseudoscience pap.

Well this is only a bare-assertion fallacy Paul. I don't accept the precepts of my faith because it was written down.

But of course you do, Mike. If it wasn’t written down by some ancient desert nomads you wouldn’t know about it. You would not have been inculcated into the cult. Your particular cult wouldn’t even exist.

Also I think it would be a false-comparison also, I don't think you can equate the bible with any statement just because you want to.

You guys do, why can’t I? You don’t have to be a believer to spout the BS, do you?

... it seems tome your post had little value beyond having a pop at me. Your strawman version of what a creationist is and means and who I am and why I believe, I am afraid only exists in your brain.

Again with the obvious. All we have to assess of one another over this medium is what we show and share. Frankly, Mike, you’re eminently pop-able. My straw man version of what a creationist is and means is indeed all in my mind and comes from more than a few encounters with the genre.

If you are not a religiously motivated creationist in all that phrase means from my experiences then you sure fake it well.

Wait ... is your name Mike or Poe?

Edited by AZPaul3, : appaulin spellin

CONCLUSION: Your ignorance of what a true Christian is, isn't even your own fault, because the Godless world is only excited by sin, which is why only sin makes the news. But if one starving baby is saved by God through me, then I have achieved a life's work.

True christian^TM.

Still using that? Have you any idea how absurdly funny that phrase has become?

Feeling a bit sensitive Mike? Feel like you are being accused of all the sins of christianity, of all religion? Which are legion as we both know.

Do good, Mike. That would be nice. But know that you consider yourself part of a club that does evil on this planet. You can go feed babies and pet kittens all you want but that stain is not going to go away.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

You know everything is/gets/was entangled/intangled.

Even discussions.

To become even more entangled let's discuss Pilot Wave Theory.

Does any of this have anything to do with entropy?

That's up to RAZD. I wouldn't think so but I'll go RAZD's way to start.

Good attempt, Mike.

But failure.

You know from your studies that we know with a great deal of confidence what chemistry can do and how it does its thing, electrons, bonds, thermodynamics, etc. You know we are closing in on a number of plausible abiogenic routes.

We do not have an answer, yet, but we have near a century of data and study pushing us toward a useful solution.

Your study in probability is the usual creationist trope of incredulity in the face of religious fervor and not from any respect for the science or the enormity of the numbers especially when viewed in parallel instead of in series. Yes, Mike, the reactive probabilities are in those large numbers.

BTW, this "first cell" thing has got to go. That first cell may have been but an evolutionary development by a life system already in operation for quite some time ... like centuries.

But the point is, Mike, we may not have an answer but we do have a lot of info on this subject.

God created life.

You have what? A gaggle of ancient stories retold, re-written and embellished x1000 by a small tribe of desert nomads seeking to find their way in a difficult and wondrous world of which they were totally ignorant?

Doesn't even begin to compete.

The universe created life through unguided natural chemistry.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Remember laymen are dangerous.

A disturbance in a quantum field seems non-mechanical because we *don’t yet* know the mechanisms involved or is it that we *cannot ever* know the mechanisms involved?

And I thought QM had a comprehensive mathematical treatment that yields exceptionally accurate results but it’s just that nobody understands why?