The first Universal Law of the Universe

Some people think it just affects christmas lights and ear buds, but it actually applies to everything:

The first Law of the Universe:
If something can get (en)tangled, it will.

The short version:

Quarks entangled with one another give us electrons, protons, neutrons ...

... which entangled with one another gives us atoms ...

... which entangled with one another gives us molecules ...

... which entangled with one another create more and more complex pre-biotic and biotic molecules ...

... proteins ... amino acids ... RNA ... DNA ... life ...

Everything is in motion so entanglement is enabled, inevitable.

Enjoy

Thread copied here from the The first Universal Law of the Universe thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Define "entangled," please.

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

Everything is in a constant state of flux, this causes interactions that manifest as both -- the macro entanglement is a manifestation of the micro entanglement, but it still occurs at the micro level.

Enjoy

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.

Butterfly effect.

Perhaps?

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.

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

For what purpose?

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

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

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

quote:

---

Subatomic Particles

Composite subatomic particles (such as protons or atomic nuclei) are bound states of two or more elementary particles. For example, a proton is made of two up quarks and one down quark, while the atomic nucleus of helium-4 is composed of two protons and two neutrons. The neutron is made of two down quarks and one up quark. Composite particles include all hadrons: these include baryons (such as protons and neutrons) and mesons (such as pions and kaons).

---

Neutron (2 down + 1 up) → Proton (1 down + 2 up) + Electron (1 down - 1 up ?) in above example.

Enjoy

Using science as your tool to attempt to answer a spiritual question, answer these:

Is sickness (cancer) a normal process? Do cells normally have these mutations? Were mutations inevitable? If so, can human intelligence undo a mutation?

By the way I'm all for the fight! We humans need to undo as many harmful mutations as our intelligence allows~!

Some say prayer doesn't help but I believe it sure cant hurt.

As Stile said:

quote:

---

Justifying God as-an-existing-entity-in-reality:
-Hasn't been able to be done, ever
-Most likely cannot be done
-Universe seems to work/act as it would if God does not exist

Justifying God as-a-Spiritual-Tool:
-very high gains here for some (eg - entry level motivation for things like charities, community spirit, morality, mental health...)
-very high negatives for others (eg - if you already have motivation for same things, it's easy to not see "the point" in God and then easy to assume there's no point for anyone)

---

I get energy from our conversations here! I hope that you do also, RAZD.

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

dwise1 suggests that I broaden my thinking. This is how major breakthroughs happen in science. Religion is far too static, but it does postulate that change is a part of growth. The change itself is fairly rigid and rule-bound. Perhaps simply thinking of positive (good) overriding negative(as bad) is too simplistic. One question: Is our nature as thinkers to think good thoughts, bad thoughts or complete thoughts? Forest Gumps Mom used to say that death is just another part of life. Traditional thinking views eternal life as a goal and death as a mutation. I'm not sure, but I think I believe that good by definition is life and that bad by definition is death.

At the cellular level, it's not so clear. Even a mutated cell seeks to live. And yet cellular death is programmed into the cells if I understand correctly.

I'm in virgin territory here. Do you separate your emotional philosophical thinking from your science mind or are you able to form a cohesion?

Is sickness (cancer) a normal process?

Yes, unfortunate though that may be. How is that a spiritual question?

Do cells normally have these mutations?

Yes, unfortunate though that may be. How is that a spiritual question?

Were mutations inevitable?

Yes, unfortunate though that may be. How is that a spiritual question?

If so, can human intelligence undo a mutation?

Yes, kind of -- at least we are working on it potentially using CRISPR. Maybe this one can finally qualify as a spiritual question, or at least an ethical question raised by the issue of gene editing.

We covered this in our "Science For You" class at OLLI, which was based on Dr. Eric Lander's MIT "Introduction to Biology" class lectures which delved deeply into genetics, which includes the development of the techniques and technology for mapping the genome. The OLLI class' site is at https://docs.google.com/...gZkwtiZ20KJ7KR1TDiIwQLzJ0vzs/edit.

Lecure #23 covered cancer. Dr. Lander started it with a Rube Goldberg machine (RGM) (a humorously over-complex contraption to perform a simple function -- I think that was the inspiration for a kids game, "Mouse Trap", and the titles of the TV show, "Elementary"), because, like many of a cell's internal mechanisms, a cell's processing of growth factors is basically an RGM. That process is a long change of phosphate cycles each of which is controlled by a unique pair of proteins, one to turn it on and cause growth and the other then turns it off. Cancer happens when the second protein mutates and is no longer able to turn off the cell's growth, resulting in the formation of a tumor.

Genome mapping used to take years of tedious work for post-grads (it's been said that the main quality of a PhD is being able to do an enormous amount of work) costing thousands of dollars, but advances in techniques and technology (the subject of some of the lectures) have reduced the time to maybe a few days and less than $1000 (there are catalogs from which you can buy the necessary enzymes for $40 to $80 each; CRISPR CAS-9 can be had for around $150, so you could do gene splicing in your garage).

As a result, you can map the genome of your tumor and compare it to your normal genome (eg, map one of your normal cells) in order to identify the mutation, then create a gene therapy specifically targeted for that particular mutation -- or at least you should be able to; these lectures were from a few years ago. But then a few more years down the road you're likely to get a different mutation (remember that that's a long phosphate chain that's vulnerable to the mutation of a turn-off enzyme at any point) that would need its own specific gene therapy.

Just for fun, check out acapellascience and acapellascience2 on YouTube, in which something science-y is presented set to some popular song, including subtitles and graphics.

In the lecture on the CRISPR system, our class facilitators presented acapellascience's CRISPR-Cas9 ("Mr. Sandman" Parody). The graphics help to demonstrate how CRISPR works. The next week, she apologized for having given us that earwig. HINT: it's not all in black-and-white, so stay tuned.

As I try to fall asleep at night, his Banting's Imparted Years sea shanty about the development of insulin therapy keeps running through my brain. Earwig indeed! But also inspiring ("Nobel them all!").

Some say prayer doesn't help but I believe it sure cant hurt.

Unfortunately, yes it can if prayer is misused.

How many innocent children have been sacrificed to their parents' Christian god because they had chosen prayer instead of medical treatment? And I'm talking about simple bacterial infections (eg, meningitis) that could have been treated effectively with antibiotics.

I would count those cases as prayer hurting.

And of course there's the GOP relying on "thoughts and prayers" to protect our schools against mass killings, yet for some reason "thoughts and prayers" are not enough to protect our southern border from an imaginary and fabricated threat.

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.

... Religion is far too static ...

Written religion certainly trends to a static state ... unless it is open to interpretations. Oral religion tends to follow the orator/s interpretations. Dogmatic beliefs are virtually by definition static.

... Is our nature as thinkers to think good thoughts, bad thoughts or complete thoughts? ...

Yes, it is also a curse, if you will: the apparent inability to not-think.

... Do you separate your emotional philosophical thinking from your science mind or are you able to form a cohesion?

I don't think it is possible to separate one from the other. They are both part of your world-view, and information is processed depending on how it fits these fundamental (to each person) concepts. The less friction there is between them the easier it is to process new information.

Even our thoughts are tangled ...

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

RAZD writes: Quarks entangled with one another give us electrons, protons, neutrons ... ... which entangled with one another gives us atoms ... ... which entangled with one another gives us molecules ... ... which entangled with one another create more and more complex pre-biotic and biotic molecules ... ... proteins ... amino acids ... RNA ... DNA ... life ... Everything is in motion so entanglement is enabled, inevitable

RAZD I would say that the problem with this assertion is that with some of the things you say science can show them to be facts but other can't be shown. For example it is true atoms can entangle and it's true atoms can entangle to create simple molecules such as H20.

But when it comes to "pre-biotic"chemicals, can you show me one of those please? What is a pre-biotic chemical? Sure, you can show me a protein in life, you can show me H20, can you show me an pre-organic chemistry?

You can't because it doesn't exist. You claim it once did, and that is the flaw with your argument because there is no example outside of organic life, of something as complex as DNA coming about because it got entangled.

So there is a qualitative difference between the former examples you gave, and the latter.

It seems you are using HINDSIGHT to say that such entanglements occurred but you can't actually show these entanglements occur on the more sophisticated level.

Now personally this means that intellectually I am not obliged to see the claim as having any credence if ultimately it depends on accepting evolution by faith.

But if you can show me where amino acids randomly entangle themselves into homochiral polymers without any reason to do so, I sure would change my mind. Your problem is there is NOT-A-ONE example outside of it being programmed by life's design.

Conclusion: I have the same reason to believe metal entangled itself and became a car chassis, because like with the protein, there is NOT-A-ONE example of this, so if I were to treat the protein any differently I would be special-pleading.

MtW writes: can you show me an pre-organic chemistry?

Sure, inorganic chemistry

Inorganic chemistry deals with the synthesis and behavior of inorganic and organometallic compounds. This field covers all chemical compounds except the myriad organic compounds, which are the subjects of organic chemistry. Wikipedia

Tangle writes: Sure, inorganic chemistry Inorganic chemistry deals with the synthesis and behavior of inorganic and organometallic compounds. This field covers all chemical compounds except the myriad organic compounds, which are the subjects of organic chemistry. Wikipedia

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.

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.

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

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

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.