Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Universal Perfection
DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 117 (63975)
11-02-2003 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Rei
11-02-2003 12:42 AM


quote:
Rei: Back to the basics here: You need to evidence that it is only realistic that any form of life would exist only in this universe.
/*DNAunion*/ No I don’t.
One of my points, which I need to support, is that this universe is fine tuned for life whether or not trillions of trillions of other universes exist. Having a vast ensemble of universes is a potential explanation for the fine tuning we observe: it doesn’t remove the fact of fine tuning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Rei, posted 11-02-2003 12:42 AM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Rei, posted 11-02-2003 4:27 PM DNAunion has replied

DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 117 (63976)
11-02-2003 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Rei
11-02-2003 12:42 AM


quote:
Rei: Carbon and oxygen don't allow life. The properties of carbon and oxygen allow life. While this may seem like a trivial distinction (such as "Guns don't kill people, bullets fired from guns kill people"), it is critical to this discussion: carbon and oxygen themselves need not even exist in any form - only the types of complex interactions that we see in organic chemistry, which in our universe are partially due to the interactions of carbon and oxygen.
/*DNAunion*/ Okay, so what other items in the Universe possess the properties of carbon and oxygen that allow for life? None. So all empirical evidence we have shows that both carbon and oxygen are required for life.
Once again, your argument is not based on empirical evidence, but on imagination/speculation.
PS: I am not claiming "I am right and you are wrong": we don't know which position is actually true. However, based on repeatable, testable, empirical observations to date, my position is supported while yours is not.
[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 11-02-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Rei, posted 11-02-2003 12:42 AM Rei has not replied

JustinC
Member (Idle past 4843 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 63 of 117 (63977)
11-02-2003 3:15 PM


Out of curiousity, what would be an argument against design?
If the universe were different, it would produce different things. It would be fine tuned for those things. Would that require design? Why or why not?
JustinC

Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 64 of 117 (63991)
11-02-2003 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by DNAunion
11-02-2003 2:45 PM


quote:
/*DNAunion*/ I already have. It is an unimpressive computer game that uses a two-dimensional array to represent the positions of organisms with some rules for the creation and deletion of organisms based on neighboring cells in the matrix; once the correct rules were found and a correct starting setup used, some figures would amazingly reappear throughout a run of the program. The organisms dont self-replicate: they are poofed into existence with a single line of code. Its not even the organisms that amazingly reappear, but shapes. Finally, theres not even any self-replication of shapes: in fact, theres no self-replication in the system at all.
/*Pretentious Code Brackets*/
1) Conway's game of life is not a really a game -It is a cellular automata. The "organisms" aspect is simpy an analogy. There are no "correct rules". For example, gliders can occur in a wide variety of rulesets (see here).
2) Conway's game of life is Turing-complete. As a consequence, it can simulate itself, or even simulate reality.
3) There *are* cellular automata self-replicators, although the ones discovered so far are pretty simple. Yet, on its own with random startups, it exhibits amazing pieces of complexity, and since it is turing-complete, it leads one to the realistic possibility that on a large enough universe with enough processing time, such an automata can create complex, advanced self-replication and adaptation. Quantum theory makes our own universe appear to be closer and closer to a cellular automata evry day
4) To read about some of the types of complexity that have occurred from Conway so far, check out this site.
I'm guessing that you just looked up Conway's Game of Life before writing your last post.
quote:
quote:
Technocore: By combining these in different ways you can construct every other convievable information-construct, like multiplication, a computer game, an artificial intelligence, or a self-replicating system.
/*DNAunion*/ Another unsupported assertion.
/*Pretentious Code Brackets*/ It's turing complete. Of course you can code any of that in it.
quote:
quote:
Technocore: The same can obviously be done with metal and springs, thogh it would be a really slow version. Or atoms of your choice. A self replicating system can be made out of of any sets of atoms.
/*DNAunion*/ Another unsupported assertion.
/*Pretentious Code Brackets*/ If the laws of a universe are finite, they can be simulated on a turing macine. A turing machine can be made out of any sets of atoms.
What you should *actually* be interested in is the probability of self-organization.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by DNAunion, posted 11-02-2003 2:45 PM DNAunion has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by DNAunion, posted 11-02-2003 10:13 PM Rei has replied

Rei
Member (Idle past 7012 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 65 of 117 (63992)
11-02-2003 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by DNAunion
11-02-2003 3:02 PM


quote:
One of my points, which I need to support, is that this universe is fine tuned for life whether or not trillions of trillions of other universes exist. Having a vast ensemble of universes is a potential explanation for the fine tuning we observe: it doesnt remove the fact of fine tuning.
The problem with that is that you have absolutely no evidence that other rulesets producing life is not rare. You're arguing from statistics, where your sample size is equal to 1 - *and*, that 1 sample is in favor of life. It's a ridiculous argument. If I was testing the probabilities of rockets blowing up on launch, someone handed me a single rocket that they had built, and it launched, would I conclude that this was the only type of rocket that can fly and not blow up on launch?
quote:
/*DNAunion*/ Okay, so what other items in the Universe possess the properties of carbon and oxygen that allow for life?
/*Pretentious Code Brackets*/ Any computational system can, and computational systems can occur in almost any iterative ruleset. The question here is probability. The key concerning carbon here is the ability to form complex chemicals of different forms. There's nothing that would lead one to expect that that is somehow unlikely in other universes, that there will be a chemical (or even some non-atomic based state). In fact, silicon too can form long chains, just not as readily as carbon.
quote:
None. So all empirical evidence we have shows that both carbon and oxygen are required for life.
Once again, no. The particular properties (in this case, the ability to store complex state information) is necessary.
quote:
Once again, your argument is not based on empirical evidence, but on imagination/speculation.
I'll be nice and not return the insult.
------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by DNAunion, posted 11-02-2003 3:02 PM DNAunion has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by DNAunion, posted 11-02-2003 8:57 PM Rei has not replied
 Message 71 by DNAunion, posted 11-02-2003 11:37 PM Rei has replied

DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 117 (64041)
11-02-2003 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Rei
11-02-2003 4:27 PM


quote:
/*DNAunion*/ One of my points, which I need to support, is that this universe is fine tuned for life whether or not trillions of trillions of other universes exist. Having a vast ensemble of universes is a potential explanation for the fine tuning we observe: it doesnt remove the fact of fine tuning.
quote:
Rei: The problem with that is that you have absolutely no evidence that other rulesets producing life is not rare. You're arguing from statistics, where your sample size is equal to 1 - *and*, that 1 sample is in favor of life. It's a ridiculous argument.
/*DNAunion*/ LOL!!! You know what’s way more ridiculous — ARGUING FROM A SAMPLE SIZE OF 0! And that’s what you are doing!! ROTFLMAO!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Rei, posted 11-02-2003 4:27 PM Rei has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by DNAunion, posted 11-02-2003 9:11 PM DNAunion has not replied

DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 117 (64043)
11-02-2003 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by DNAunion
11-02-2003 8:57 PM


quote:
Rei: If I was testing the probabilities of rockets blowing up on launch, someone handed me a single rocket that they had built, and it launched, would I conclude that this was the only type of rocket that can fly and not blow up on launch?
/*DNAunion*/ A flawed analogy as it does not parallel the discussion.
Is carbon and oxygen required for life? Unlike your analogy suggests, I am not handing you just a single cat and saying, Yep. Nor am I handing you just a litter of cats and saying, Yep. In fact, I am not handing you just a whole population of cats and saying, Yep. Let’s go farther...I am not handing you just a species of cat and saying, Yep. Nope, I am handing trillions of organisms that belong to a multitude of groups as diverse as humans, vines, cacti, snakes, seastars, fruit flies, yeast, and bacteria, and saying, All of these living organisms — and all others known — require carbon and oxygen.
[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 11-02-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by DNAunion, posted 11-02-2003 8:57 PM DNAunion has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by crashfrog, posted 11-02-2003 9:38 PM DNAunion has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 68 of 117 (64047)
11-02-2003 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by DNAunion
11-02-2003 9:11 PM


Is carbon and oxygen required for life? Unlike your analogy suggests, I am not handing you just a single cat and saying, Yep. Nor am I handing you just a litter of cats and saying, Yep. In fact, I am not handing you just a whole population of cats and saying, Yep. Let’s go farther...I am not handing you just a species of cat and saying, Yep. Nope, I am handing trillions of organisms that belong to a multitude of groups as diverse as humans, vines, cacti, snakes, seastars, fruit flies, yeast, and bacteria, and saying, All of these living organisms — and all others known — require carbon and oxygen.
I think you're acting like life on Earth is all the life that exists. Sure, it's all the life that we know exists, but we don't know that it doesn't exist anywhere else, and we don't know how it exists, and the laws of physics suggest that it could exist based on other chemistries. That's what she's pointing out to you - that simply because all the life we know of is based on a certain chemistry - which by the way should be obvious, given that all life forms are decended from the same organism - that doesn't suggest a hidden law of physics that could prevent life from being based on another chemistry. You're proposing a hidden law. We're saying that there's no evidence for one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by DNAunion, posted 11-02-2003 9:11 PM DNAunion has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by DNAunion, posted 11-02-2003 10:00 PM crashfrog has replied

DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 117 (64053)
11-02-2003 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by crashfrog
11-02-2003 9:38 PM


quote:
Crashfrog: I think you're acting like life on Earth is all the life that exists.
/*DNAunion*/ You woulnd't if you carefully read all of my posts in this thread.
quote:
Crashfrog: Sure, it's all the life that we know exists, but we don't know that it doesn't exist anywhere else, and we don't know how it exists, and the laws of physics suggest that [life] could exist based on other chemistries.
/*DNAunion*/ Please give details.
quote:
Crashfrog: ... simply because all the life we know of is based on a certain chemistry - which by the way should be obvious, given that all life forms are decended from the same organism
/*DNAunion*/ Actually, it's not obvious at all, considering the assumptions "she" uses.
If another form of life is likely, then why haven't we found that other form of life here on Earth? Why have we found only the form of life that requires carbon and oxygen? See, it's not obvious: there needs to be an explanation. And "it's life we have to imagine, and it would be in a hypothetical universe with bizarre laws" is hardly a convincing explanation.
[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 11-02-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by crashfrog, posted 11-02-2003 9:38 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by crashfrog, posted 11-02-2003 11:58 PM DNAunion has replied

DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 117 (64059)
11-02-2003 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Rei
11-02-2003 4:20 PM


quote:
/*DNAunion*/ I already have [checked out the game of life]. It is an unimpressive computer game that uses a two-dimensional array to represent the positions of organisms with some rules for the creation and deletion of organisms based on neighboring cells in the matrix; once the correct rules were found and a correct starting setup used, some figures would amazingly reappear throughout a run of the program. The organisms dont self-replicate: they are poofed into existence with a single line of code. Its not even the organisms that amazingly reappear, but shapes. Finally, theres not even any self-replication of shapes: in fact, theres no self-replication in the system at all.
quote:
Rei: There are no "correct rules".
/*DNAunion*/ That appears to be an assertion that I was wrong in my statements: once the correct rules were found and a correct starting setup used, some figures would amazingly reappear throughout a run of the program. If so, you are wrong and I am right, as Conway himself states.
quote:
The hardest step turned out to be finding a suitable two-dimensional system to study. Although such systems operate on an infinite plane, studying them involves observing some limited finite section of the plane. Conway's research group used Go boards to develop Life, and in order to be able to study a system it was necessary that populations did not tend to explode and race off the board. This meant they had to impose some sort of death rule on the system. And of course a system would have to have sufficiently interesting behaviour in order to have any chance of being a universal system, so it was equally important that populations did not usually die out; hence, the birth rule.
"We played with all sorts of rules, studying their effects, and seeing what happened" Conway says. "Either things tended to explode in population tremendously, or else they tended to die off. So it became this question, how can you adjust the relative strengths of the birth and death rules so [that for a typical population] there is a fair probability that they won't die off, and that it doesn't grow linearly either." The real difficulty in finding a suitable system was finding the right relative strengths of these rules in order for the system to be both interesting enough to study and stable enough to live with.
Over two years of tea and coffee breaks Conway and a group of graduate students and colleagues experimented with the life and death rules. And when they arrived at the set of rules that became Life, they quickly stopped tinkering. (bold emphasis added, Games, Life and the Game of Life | plus.maths.org)
/*DNAunion*/ Let's see where else you were wrong.
quote:
Rei: I'm guessing that you just looked up Conway's Game of Life before writing your last post.
/*DNAunion*/ You’re wrong. I checked the game of life out several years ago (I was going off the top of my head with my original comments: I’ve lost my personal notes on this).
[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 11-02-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Rei, posted 11-02-2003 4:20 PM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Rei, posted 11-03-2003 1:10 PM DNAunion has replied

DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 117 (64066)
11-02-2003 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Rei
11-02-2003 4:27 PM


quote:
/*DNAunion*/ Okay, so what other items in the Universe possess the properties of carbon and oxygen that allow for life?
quote:
Rei: /*Pretentious Code Brackets*/ Any computational system can ...
/*DNAunion*/ So are you claiming that an abacus is alive?!?!?!? What about our PCs?!?!?!?
I'd guess that your statement relies heavily upon CAN, as is CAN IN PRINCIPAL.
quote:
Rei: The key concerning carbon here is the ability to form complex chemicals of different forms. ... In fact, silicon too can form long chains, just not as readily as carbon.
/*DNAunion*/ Silicon has several properties that restrict it from serving as a basis for life.
1) Unlike carbon, silicon does not readily form double or triple bonds.
2) Unlike carbon, silicon does not readily form long, stable chains.
3) Unlike carbon, silicon does not readily form stable rings.
4) Unlike carbon, silicon adorned only with hydrogen atoms will spontaneously burst into flames if exposed to oxygen.
5) Unlike carbon, silicon tends to combine mostly with oxygen; furthermore, these compounds are not molecules (unlike the main compounds formed from carbon).
6) Unlike carbon, silicon (in its most common form) tends to bind with metallic cations to form inorganic minerals.
But of course, this shows one problem with your line of argument. Silicon, you claim, has properties of carbon that allow for life, and life is not restricted to carbon. So where are your examples of silicon life? Why haven't we found any on Earth? After all, silicon is the second most abundant element in the Earth's crust.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Rei, posted 11-02-2003 4:27 PM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Rei, posted 11-03-2003 1:39 PM DNAunion has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 72 of 117 (64068)
11-02-2003 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by DNAunion
11-02-2003 10:00 PM


You woulnd't if you carefully read all of my posts in this thread.
I'm sorry you'll have to point out where you've talked about life on other planets. As far as I've read you've talked about all the life we can observe, and as far as I know, all that life is on Earth. Can you point out where you've said anything about life on other planets?
Please give details.
Don't have 'em. We're just speculating, after all. What's life? Reiterating chemistry. Can molecules based on silicon reiterate? Sure.
If another form of life is likely, then why haven't we found that other form of life here on Earth? Why have we found only the form of life that requires carbon and oxygen? See, it's not obvious: there needs to be an explanation. And "it's life we have to imagine, and it would be in a hypothetical universe with bizarre laws" is hardly a convincing explanation.
Seriously? You're seriously asking this? Like, you seriously don't know?
I would have thought it would be obvious. The reason we don't see life based on those chemisties on Earth is because oxygen-carbon chemistry won. There's no way life based on those chemistries could gain a foothold on an Earth filled with carbon life. The carbon-oxygen biome is not compatible with that kind of life.
Basically you can't mix chemistries. If we find life based on different chemistry, it'll be the only chemistry on that planet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by DNAunion, posted 11-02-2003 10:00 PM DNAunion has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by DNAunion, posted 11-03-2003 8:21 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 75 by DNAunion, posted 11-03-2003 8:36 AM crashfrog has replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 73 of 117 (64089)
11-03-2003 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by DNAunion
11-01-2003 2:31 PM


They aren't pretentious: they're explicit labels used for clarity's sake.
They don't make it clearer, they make it less so.
It says next to your post who's writing it, so anything that is unattributed is assumed to be from you, and anything quoted to be a reply to the message your message is listed as being a reply to. By not conforming to the quoting standards of this Forum, you make your post harder to read and yourself look bad.
Please desist.
{I agree with Mr Jack - Adminnemooseus}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-03-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by DNAunion, posted 11-01-2003 2:31 PM DNAunion has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by DNAunion, posted 11-03-2003 8:39 AM Dr Jack has not replied

DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 117 (64111)
11-03-2003 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by crashfrog
11-02-2003 11:58 PM


quote:
/*DNAUnion*/ You woulnd't if you carefully read all of my posts in this thread.
quote:
crashfrog: I'm sorry you'll have to point out where you've talked about life on other planets. As far as I've read you've talked about all the life we can observe, and as far as I know, all that life is on Earth. Can you point out where you've said anything about life on other planets?
/*DNAunion*/ That’s not what I have to point out. Read these previous statements from me in this thread, paying special attention to the part I’ve bolded this time.
quote:
/*DNAunion*/ Okay, so what other items in the Universe possess the properties of carbon and oxygen that allow for life? None. So all empirical evidence we have shows that both carbon and oxygen are required for life.
Once again, your argument is not based on empirical evidence, but on imagination/speculation.
PS: I am not claiming "I am right and you are wrong": we don't know which position is actually true. However, based on repeatable, testable, empirical observations to date, my position is supported while yours is not.
/*DNAunion*/ In the past, I have frequently used arguments that assume there is life out there unlike our own. But I understand that when I do so, I leave the realm of the empirically based and move into the realm of unsupported speculation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by crashfrog, posted 11-02-2003 11:58 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by crashfrog, posted 11-03-2003 12:06 PM DNAunion has replied

DNAunion
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 117 (64114)
11-03-2003 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by crashfrog
11-02-2003 11:58 PM


quote:
/*DNAunion*/ If another form of life is likely, then why haven't we found that other form of life here on Earth? Why have we found only the form of life that requires carbon and oxygen? See, it's not obvious: there needs to be an explanation. And "it's life we have to imagine, and it would be in a hypothetical universe with bizarre laws" is hardly a convincing explanation.
quote:
Crashfrog: Seriously? You're seriously asking this? Like, you seriously don't know?
/*DNAunion*/ No silly. Like, I am pointing out problems with your argument. As you will see, your following counter fails.
quote:
Crashfrog: I would have thought it would be obvious. The reason we don't see life based on those chemisties on Earth is because oxygen-carbon chemistry won. There's no way life based on those chemistries could gain a foothold on an Earth filled with carbon life. The carbon-oxygen biome is not compatible with that kind of life.
Basically you can't mix chemistries. If we find life based on different chemistry, it'll be the only chemistry on that planet.
/*DNAunion*/ Wrong. The general position you are attempting to express (which dates back to Darwin, at least) deals with why only one form of life AS WE KNOW IT exists on Earth. Once you get a carbon-based life form well established any new carbon-based upstarts would be quickly consumed because they would be food for the established life, or they would become extinct because they couldn’t compete with the well established, already well adapted, life forms for the shared organic resources.
But, both you and Rei have put silicon chemistry forward as a potential life form. So why couldn’t a silicon based life form live side by side here on Earth with one based on carbon? Since they use different elements to maintain themselves and to reproduce — carbon vs. silicon - there would be no competition between the life forms for their core element: no competition implies no winner.
So you still need to explain further why we haven’t found some alternate form of life here on Earth, since, as some claim, it could be based on silicon and otherwise differ from LAWKI.
It’s fun to see people try to support their unsupported speculationsisn’t it :-)
[This message has been edited by DNAunion, 11-03-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by crashfrog, posted 11-02-2003 11:58 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by crashfrog, posted 11-03-2003 12:12 PM DNAunion has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024