|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Universal Perfection | |||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: /*DNAunion*/ No. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 11-03-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12995 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi, all!
Before things spin out of control, just a couple comments:
------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
/* NosyNed */ I don't happen to understand what is the problem with a particular way of noting who is saying what. It is better that it be there than not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
/*DNAunion*/ Thumbs up to NosyNed and the administrator.
Let’s see how the reasonable moderator at another site ruled about this very thing a few months ago when others at that site whined.
quote: /*DNAunion*/ Pretty much along the lines of what this forum's administrator stated. Before I read the above post by the administrator, I checked this forum’s rules (http:///WebPages/ForumRules.html) and saw that there is NOTHING in them that says one can’t explicitly label statements, including their own, with their owners (and it would be ridiculous to make such a rule). So at this forum too I am breaking no rules by labeling statements the way I do. However, those who have sidetracked this thread’s discussion by arguing against my perfectly legal documentation style (such as Mr Frank) ARE going against a forum rule, rule #1:
quote: /*DNAunion*/ So let's hope this sidetracking issue is dropped and we get back to the real discussion. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 11-03-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Ok, it begins to get a little clearer -
quote: - you're just setting up a false dichotomy. Our position is that life could exist based on other chemistries. Your position is that all the life we know of is based on carbon and oxygen chemistry. I fail to see why these positions can't both be correct. The problem is that if they're both true, it kind of eliminates the idea of "fine-tuning", because you can't know about what could exist in another universe. If all possibilities lead to some form of life, in any imaginable sense, then you can hardly say we're "fine-tuned" for life, can you? It sounds to me like we're both doing a fair bit of speculation. The difference is Rei's speculation (not trying to eliminate myself from the discussion here, but rather to avoid taking credit for Rei's work in this discussion) could be confirmed by potential observations in other areas of the universe. Your speculation of fine-tuning, however, can never be confirmed or denied unless we can peek into other universes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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. Duh. You said it yourself, in a post to Rei. (Possibly in another thread, now that I think about it.) You mentioned that silicon-hydrogen molecules would be disasterous in the presence of oxygen. Carbon biomes release oxygen, as we observe. The oxygen, therefore, rules out the possibility of silicon based life. Carbon-based life isn't compatible with silicon-based life, ergo we only see one or the other. Silicon based life could exist, it just couldn't exist where carbon life already had a foothold. I'm not enough of a biochemist to know if even a well-established silicon biome could survive carbon-based life. I doubt it, really.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7012 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
You know, I personally don't care what Conway himself had to say about the issue. The fact is, since Conway's work, people have generalized a way to describe cellular automata rulesets, and complex behavior is found all over (for example, did you notice the list of rulesets in which gliders have been discovered so far?). I seriously recommend that you try plugging in random rulesets from generalized automata before you make this claim. Hexagonal grids, long-distance comparisons, you name it.
Is that the only commentary you had? I raised half a dozen points in my post, and you barely replied. ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12995 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
To head off potential confusion, some clarifying comments:
Hope this helps! ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7012 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
quote: /*Pretentious Code Brackets*/ Explain specifically why this is relevant to life. We're not talking about reimplementing LAWKI with silicon instead of carbon - we're talking about whether life can exist based on silicon instead of carbon. You need to evidence why double or triple bonds are a necessity.
quote: /*Pretentious Code Brackets*/ Not true. Silicon doesn't double bond with oxygen as readily as carbon, and prefers four Si-O bonds. This leads to readily available Si-O polymerization, since the oxygens have an additional bond. Silicon oxides are not only polymeric, but also anionic - they can absorb cations and behave like ionic exchange resins (such as in zeolites). They can also behave as superacids and catalysts (again, as in zeolites).
quote: /*Pretentious Code Brackets*/ Why are rings necessary for life? Again, you seem to be having a lot of trouble grasping this, so I'll have to state it again: We're not looking to reimplement current life with silicon. We're looking as to whether the overall properties of life can exist from silicon-based polymers. "Rings" is not an overall property, just one of many possible means to an outcome.
quote: /*Pretentious Code Brackets*/ Who is proposing life based around silicon hydrides in an oxygen-rich world? Talk about a straw man
quote: /*Pretentious Code Brackets*/ Silicon tends to combine with oxygen, which tends to combine with silicon, which tends to combine with oxygen... i.e., forming alternating Si-O chains.
quote: /*Pretentious Code Brackets*/ If life was based on silicon, they would by definition be organic. Bonding with metallic cations would actually be quite useful; there are anions such as borates and alluminates that can be incorporated into a silcate network, modifying its acidic and catalytic properties. Again, you really baffle me: You're arguing that LAWKI is the only type of life possible in all parts of all universes, by arguing that LAWKI is the only type of life known, in the one small part of one single universe that has been observed. Also, please understand: we are *NOT* trying to argue that LAWKI can exist in other universes, or is likely in other parts of this universe (although it may be). We are arguing that Life Not As We Know It can exist, if the *general properties* that comprise life exist (the ability to catalyze reactions between states, to store state information, a large energetic environment for abiogenesis, etc). ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me." [This message has been edited by Rei, 11-03-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: quote: /*DNAunion*/ Wait a tick...who says that life MUST have molecules saturated with hydrogen??? Surely not you guys!? You guys have been saying that life doesn’t need carbon, even though carbon is the fundamental element of the chemistry of all life forms known, and can otherwise differ from life-as-we-know-it, so it’s rather out of line with your guys’ overall stance to now claim that life can’t exist without the main element being saturated with hydrogen. As one example, why can’t your guys’ hypothetical life-as-we-don’t-know-it be based on silicon, oxygen, and chlorine? Or some other set of elements? One problem with your guys’ position is that is rests upon the assumption that a life form totally unlike life-as-we-know-it can exist, yet we see no evidence whatsoever of any alternate form of life here on Earth (or in any samples we’ve retrieved or received from other bodies in our solar system). If there are (at least) two fundamentally and distinctly different life forms, then there should be no competition between them and one should not drive the other to extinction, and therefore, we should find evidence of that other life form (either here on Earth, or in meteorites, etc.). But we don’t. ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE. Of course the evidence may point to the wrong conclusion, but at least I have two (related) pieces of evidence supporting my current position: 1) All of the millions of various organisms examined to date are based on the same general chemistry (biochemistry involving nucleic acids, proteins, etc.). This supports (but obviously does not "prove") the position that all life is based on biochemistry as we know it. 2) No examples of life not based on the kind of general chemistry referenced in (1) have been found. This supports (but obviously does not "prove") the position that life can’t be based on any chemistry except for biochemistry as we know it.
quote: /*DNAunion*/ Why? Silicon combines quite well with oxygen, so silicon and oxygen work well together. You just won’t have too much luck forming long silicon chains that are saturated with hydrogen; but hey, who says life MUST have long saturated chains???? Surely not you guys!?
quote: /*DNAunion*/ Sorry, but you have not demonstrated your premise (Carbon-based life isn’t compatible with silicon-based life): therefore, your conclusion (ergo we only see one or the other) does not follow and shouldn’t be trusted.
quote: /*DNAunion*/ An unsupported assertion.
quote: /*DNAunion*/ A position you only THINK you’ve demonstrated. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 11-03-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: /*DNAunion*/ Well of course you don’t, because what Conway — the inventor of the game of life — said matches what I said.
quote: /*DNAunion*/ I already supported the few claims I made about the game of life — the one example that you offered. The way I see it, I'm done. You must be reading more into my statements than is actually there, or, you must be trying to drag this discussion off onto a tangent that I simply am not all that interested in.
quote: /*DNAunion*/ I addressed what I cared to. You are dragging the discussion off onto a tangent and there is no requirement for me to follow along on a leash. You are moving from the physical universal and its actual life and the real chemistry involved, to the cyberworld of hypothetical organisms that are poofed into existence by programmers based on rules they construct and where in principle claims are made based on hypothetical infinite resources. By the way, have you taken time to consider all of the ramifications of your game of life and other cellular automata? What all do they model? These organisms live in their own little universe that has its own laws that govern the workings. Who created the universe those organisms live in? Who established the laws of nature in that universes? A religious person (not me) could easily claim that cellular automata model a God — an all-powerful, extra-dimensional being that exists outside of the universe, who is invisible and undetectable, and who fined tuned the universe to allow for life to arise and persist by setting up very specific initial conditions and also by laying down specific laws that govern the day-to-day workings of the universe, and who then breathed life into that universe. A double-edged sword, I guess. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 11-03-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: /*DNAunion*/ Apparently it’s not crystal clear to you yet: there is no false dichotomy. Simply put, either: 1) Life can only be based on the kind of biochemistry we know of or 2) Life can be based on a kind of chemistry other than that referenced in (1) That is a true dichotomy. The question is, which is correct? The truth is, we don’t know (which my statement you quoted indicates). All we can do is provide evidence and logic to come to a tentative conclusion. You guys are asserting (2) is correct, without having any real evidence (i.e., it’s all unsupported speculation). I am saying that all direct observations to date support (1), but am doing so without claiming that (1) is surely correct (again, which my statement you quoted indicates).
quote: /*DNAunion*/ The two positions you stated COULD BE, POSSIBLY. But the actual two positions can’t both be true.
quote: /*DNAunion*/ And if all birds can fly, and penguins are birds, then you can hardly say that penguins can’t fly, can you? Conclusions not based on true premises cannot be trusted.
quote: /*DNAunion*/ Yes, the position that life-not-as-we-know-it exist is IN PRINCIPLE verifiable: it can’t be done yet, and may never be able to be done...but IN PRINCIPLE, it could be.
quote: /*DNAunion*/ Based on the supported (but not proven) assumption that life is restricted to LAWKI, the Universe is fine-tuned for life. For example, make the strong force a few percent stronger or weaker and the Universe is no longer compatible with life. Same goes for similar changes in the strengths of the weak force, the gravitational force, or the electromagnetic force. Even though the four forces range over approximately 40 orders of magnitude, a small (< 5%?) change in any one of them means no life. Perhaps you could restate your commentt so I know exactly what you mean. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 11-03-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: /*DNAunion*/ Rei, would mind explaining to us how code brackets themselves can be pretentious?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Simply put, either: 1) Life can only be based on the kind of biochemistry we know of or 2) Life can be based on a kind of chemistry other than that referenced in (1) Yes, that's the true dichotomy. The problem is, the fact that we observe that all the life on one little planet in a corner of the big, big universe has only one kind of life is not evidence for number 1. Neither, of course, is it evidence for number two. There's simply insufficient evidence to know which is correct. In the meantime it would seem reasonable to go with the assumption that doesn't assume an undiscovered law of chemistry; number 2.
Based on the supported (but not proven) assumption that life is restricted to LAWKI, the Universe is fine-tuned for life. But such a position can't even be supported. When you say that "life is restricted to LAWKI", you're using a circular definition of life. You're saying that life as we know it can only be life as we know it. Of course that's true. There's no way we could know about life that isn't life as we know it, by definition. If you want to play with circular definitions, that's fine. I like to play with Ockham's Razor. Since there's no physical law that prevents life as we don't know it, I'll assume that it could exist. To assume otherwise would be to assume an unknown physical law that would prevent it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: quote: /*DNAunion*/ Yes, and that's the one I've been using all along. So why did you disingenuously charge me with creating a false dichotomy? Oh, I see, just an attempt by you to score some rhetoric points.
quote: /*DNAunion*/ Wrong. It is evidence for (1). What it isn’t is sufficient evidence to prove (1) or to rule out (2).
quote: /*DNAunion*/ Wrong. In the meantime, it would seem reasonable to go with one that all the empirical evidence to date supports. That makes more sense than going with the one that goes against all current empirical observations, and which lacks any support of its own, which suggests it may be wrong (absence of evidence is evidence of absence).
quote: quote: /*DNAunion*/ LOL! And you can support yours? Nope. You are arguing from a sample size of 0...much worse off than I am. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 11-04-2003]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024