He won a Yank award I gather.
Which side do you think he's on fm?
He would give that bullshit from your previous post short shrift if he applied his attention to it.
real life wrote:Steve 41oo wrote:real life wrote:...In fact, even chemists who are sympathetic to evolution admit the improbability of such a start to life.
Guardian wrote:
Scientists a step nearer to creating artificial life
· New progress towards synthetic organism
· Hope of fuels, drugs and ways to fight pollution
So if dozens of PhDs spend millions of dollars in hi tech equipment, and years of co-ordinated effort to follow an established, successful pattern and 'create life'.................
................that's the same as proving it could all happen by chance with raw elements just bumping into each other, right?
Fair point.
but its a bit more involved than "dead" chemicals bumping into each other and creating "living" material
from astrophysical and astrochemical orgins of life:
Quote:Current experimental research investigating the origin of life is focused on the spontaneous formation of stable polymers out of monomers. However, understanding the spontaneous formation of structure is not enough to understand the formation of life. The introduction and evolution of information and complexity is essential to our definition of life. The formation of complexity and the means to distribute and store information are currently being investigated in a number of theoretical frameworks, such as evolving algorithms, chaos theory and modern evolution theory
I'm particularly struck with chaos theory (not that I'm expert). It seems order does indeed naturally grow out of chaos. So in the beginning the earth was void and without form. But a few billion years changed all that!
Steve 41oo wrote:real life wrote:Steve 41oo wrote:real life wrote:...In fact, even chemists who are sympathetic to evolution admit the improbability of such a start to life.
Guardian wrote:
Scientists a step nearer to creating artificial life
· New progress towards synthetic organism
· Hope of fuels, drugs and ways to fight pollution
So if dozens of PhDs spend millions of dollars in hi tech equipment, and years of co-ordinated effort to follow an established, successful pattern and 'create life'.................
................that's the same as proving it could all happen by chance with raw elements just bumping into each other, right?
Fair point.
but its a bit more involved than "dead" chemicals bumping into each other and creating "living" material
from astrophysical and astrochemical orgins of life:
Quote:Current experimental research investigating the origin of life is focused on the spontaneous formation of stable polymers out of monomers. However, understanding the spontaneous formation of structure is not enough to understand the formation of life. The introduction and evolution of information and complexity is essential to our definition of life. The formation of complexity and the means to distribute and store information are currently being investigated in a number of theoretical frameworks, such as evolving algorithms, chaos theory and modern evolution theory
I'm particularly struck with chaos theory (not that I'm expert). It seems order does indeed naturally grow out of chaos. So in the beginning the earth was void and without form. But a few billion years changed all that!
The end of the universe is foreseen as one of greater DISorder, not greater order, as the 2nd law (entropy) takes it's toll.
The universe is moving constantly toward greater disorder, and it always has.
real life wrote:The end of the universe is foreseen as one of greater DISorder, not greater order, as the 2nd law (entropy) takes it's toll.
The universe is moving constantly toward greater disorder, and it always has.
Tell that to all the little kids growing sugar crystals on a string. Obviously local systems don't always move toward disorder. Which you would already know if you understood the SLT and physics.
rosborne979 wrote:real life wrote:The end of the universe is foreseen as one of greater DISorder, not greater order, as the 2nd law (entropy) takes it's toll.
The universe is moving constantly toward greater disorder, and it always has.
Tell that to all the little kids growing sugar crystals on a string. Obviously local systems don't always move toward disorder. Which you would already know if you understood the SLT and physics.
Sugar crystals don't contain information on the order of the genetic information required in living organisms.
Comparing the symmetry of a crystal or a snowflake with the information in RNA or DNA is ludicrous, ros.
Can't you do better than that?
In addition, the term 'disorder' (in the context of the laws of thermodynamics) refers to the availability of energy for work.
Living organisms need a chemical mechanism in order to convert energy in useful work (e.g. photosynthesis).
How do you propose that energy was initially harnessed and regulated in work WITHOUT a mechanism in place already?
real life wrote:Sugar crystals don't contain information on the order of the genetic information required in living organisms.
The order of magnitude doesn't matter. You made a sweeping statement, which is demonstratedly incorrect based on small local cases.
If you want to make a more accurate statement, then go ahead. But you can't support your vague generalization simply by denying the validity of local examples.
rosborne979 wrote:real life wrote:Sugar crystals don't contain information on the order of the genetic information required in living organisms.
The order of magnitude doesn't matter. You made a sweeping statement, which is demonstratedly incorrect based on small local cases.
If you want to make a more accurate statement, then go ahead. But you can't support your vague generalization simply by denying the validity of local examples.
Size matters, ros.
I can support the idea that if you threw two 'zeroes' and two 'ones' to the floor that the sequence might turn up 'zero one one zero' (symmetrical).
But I cannot support the idea that if you threw 1,000,000 'zeroes' and 1,000,000 'ones' to the floor that they would EVER fall into an arrangement equivalent to a usable binary code.
Once again, you trot out your ignorance of the application of the second law of thermodynamics. As matter tends toward disorder, there is less energy available for "useful" work, in a closed system. The earth does not exist as a discrete, closed system. The earth receives energy from outside sources, most notably, the local star. Energy is not only abundantly available for "useful" work, the amount of available energy--within a range of variation--remains nearly a constant as solar radiation has a direct and dramatic effect on our atmosphere, and the surface of matter beneath the atmosphere, which is to say land and water. That there would be sufficient energy available for order to arise from the affinities of chemicals is a prosaic condition which does no violence to the concept of the second law of thermodynamics.
One would think that you'd tire of constantly failing to work the same dodge again and again--but apparently, you are tirelessly willing to demonstrate your scientific hebetude.
real life wrote:Steve 41oo wrote:real life wrote:Steve 41oo wrote:real life wrote:...In fact, even chemists who are sympathetic to evolution admit the improbability of such a start to life.
Guardian wrote:
Scientists a step nearer to creating artificial life
· New progress towards synthetic organism
· Hope of fuels, drugs and ways to fight pollution
So if dozens of PhDs spend millions of dollars in hi tech equipment, and years of co-ordinated effort to follow an established, successful pattern and 'create life'.................
................that's the same as proving it could all happen by chance with raw elements just bumping into each other, right?
Fair point.
but its a bit more involved than "dead" chemicals bumping into each other and creating "living" material
from astrophysical and astrochemical orgins of life:
Quote:Current experimental research investigating the origin of life is focused on the spontaneous formation of stable polymers out of monomers. However, understanding the spontaneous formation of structure is not enough to understand the formation of life. The introduction and evolution of information and complexity is essential to our definition of life. The formation of complexity and the means to distribute and store information are currently being investigated in a number of theoretical frameworks, such as evolving algorithms, chaos theory and modern evolution theory
I'm particularly struck with chaos theory (not that I'm expert). It seems order does indeed naturally grow out of chaos. So in the beginning the earth was void and without form. But a few billion years changed all that!
The end of the universe is foreseen as one of greater DISorder, not greater order, as the 2nd law (entropy) takes it's toll.
The universe is moving constantly toward greater disorder, and it always has.
I dont disagree with that. Life uses energy to go uphill against entropy. I think living things really do happen naturally. But if you ask me why we dont see a sky full of alien civilisations...well thats beyond my pay grade. Enrico Fermi asked "where is everyone?"
Enrico was a putz, whose horizons of imagination outside the arena of particle physics was equivalent to the scientific sophistication of bible thumpers. When Enrico attempted to be profound and ask where everybody is, he ignored a universe worth of practical realities which make his alleged paradox a joke.
I respect Set's opinion greatly on many things. But on the Fermi Paradox our opinions could not be more different.
I find the Fermi Paradox to be as compelling today as when it was first proposed. A mystery of monumental proportions.
Bear in mind that I consider self-replicating machines to be an inevitable outgrowth of technology such as ours. And I consider the motivation to expand and explore to be a strong (although not ubiquitous) aspect of biological organisms wherever they may evolve (if I remember correctly, these were the main points of contention where Set and I diverged in other threads). I understand that these assumptions are debatable, as are other elements of the Drake equation.
I had invited a physicist friend named Geoffrey Landis to join in a previous discussion on this subject, but he took one look at Spendi's posts on the thread and was so appalled by Spendi's immaturity that he declined to enter the discussion.
See also:
Fermi Problems
Ros,
Frankly I regard us as self replicating electro mechanical devices.
But don't feel too bad about it. An amoeba or a tree also qualifies.
We are in good company
Ros:
I don't object to the concept of self-replicating machines, and the mechanical exploration of the cosmos. But that is not at all what Fermi proposed. People who were enamored of his alleged paradox took the ball and ran with it. Dear old Enrico never mentioned self-replicating, automated exploration vessels. Fermi's paradox was (allegedly) embodied in the question: "Where are they?," or, "Where is everybody?"
It's a naive and witless question. Since then, however, legions of the overeager have dashed in to make much more complex and detailed assertions, and self-replicating, automated exploration vessels are an example.
Fermi's question only ever went as far as space craft or probes. Everyone so quickly conflates Fermi's 1950 question with Hart's 1975 paper, and runs around, intellectually speaking, like so many chickens bereft of their heads.
The contention that sentient beings themselves would be widely in evidence is an absurdity, for a variety of reasons, the lack of the examination of which show just how naive Fermi's position was.
Getting materials out of the mother well of the gravity of the natal planet is going to be hugely expensive in energy and material costs. The concept that any significant number of colonists can be readily and easily put into interstellar space, or that this will occur any significant number of times is extremely naive in terms of understanding what a society's priorities are going to be. With billions of people on this planet, we would never be able to have a significant impact on our population by exporting people to the stars, and why the hell should those remaining behind make huge sacrifices for people they'll never see again, and from whom they are never likely to hear again?
Colonizing efforts would need to take a lot of people, and a lot of plants and animals--either that, or massive amounts of food and materials--which just means even more unbelievably large commitments of energy and materials. One huge effort to accomplish that end could bankrupt the resources of a civilization for generations, for centuries, perhaps for millennia. Given that, why should they be doing it very often, if at all? Moving living creatures through space presents enormous problems with the problems of zero "g" and cosmic radiation--two more factors which just increase the degree of expense and difficulty by orders of magnitude.
Too many people reading too much science fiction and doing too little practical thinking here. Why should there be radio waves shooting back and forth across the stars if a probe, or a group of colonists, are simply going to be sending information one way, and still restricted by the speed of light for communications purposes?
The real problem is that people just don't like to face the possibility that it will likely never prove practical to leave our natal planet and head out to the stars, and meanwhile keep calling home on a regular basis. In fact, the probability is high that a technologically advanced civilization will only ever be able to afford the effort if they are facing the death of their home star--in which case it's only going to roll around every few billion years.
As for robot interstellar craft--they could have been here dozens of times, and it if hadn't happened within the last century, we'd have no way of knowing.
Silly proposition on the face of it, and far too seductive to the lovers of the "what if" glories of science fiction, whose numbers are legion.
You're entitled to your opinion. But I still disagree (even though according to your post, I place myself into the "witless" category by doing so).
There are of course, simple answers to the paradox, but they are based on assumptions which I think are incorrect. For example, one obvious solution is that we are the one-and-only sentient life form in the entire universe. That would answer "The Great Silence" as well as "Where are They?".
I suppose the real discussion here comes down to the Drake equation, and our personal guesses at each element.
Check this out.
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
Please tell me what you think if you watch some or all of it.
I've seen it before. The history and comparison of various religions figures in the beginning is interesting, but I don't know how accurate it all is. I would like to see a summary of sources for much of the information relating to the various deities mentioned. Unfortunately, the arguments in the later part of the movie are so logically flawed and full of propaganda that they only serve to undermine the credibility of the whole movie.
Did you ever think about why we don't nationalize the federal reserve?
I am not arguing. I ask because I am trying to understand.
And another thing. If the bible is a lie where does the part in the bible come from where people are taking the 666 stamp for food. That is not in pagan myth is it?
I thought it was pretty friggen interesting.
Another thing I don't understand is why don't we talk about nationalizing the federal reserve on T.V.?
rosborne979 wrote:You're entitled to your opinion. But I still disagree (even though according to your post, I place myself into the "witless" category by doing so).
There are of course, simple answers to the paradox, but they are based on assumptions which I think are incorrect. For example, one obvious solution is that we are the one-and-only sentient life form in the entire universe. That would answer "The Great Silence" as well as "Where are They?".
I suppose the real discussion here comes down to the Drake equation, and our personal guesses at each element.
If you wish to brand yourself witless, that is no affair of mine. I am simply pointing out that the implication of the question "where is everybody?" is that interstellar flight is far simpler and less expensive than our knowledge of physics and practical engineering should suggest to us. After more than 40 years of traveling into near-earth space, we have a very good idea of the resources necessary to do this on a practical basis, so one might have excused Fermi for being a bit naive in 1950.
I consider that even in the case of the Drake equation, there are far too many rather obvious things which get ignored. If cetaceans were the dominant sentient life form on this planet, one could hardly expect them to have developed metallurgy and electronics. Another consideration is that sentient species on other planets may have had no need to become technologically advanced, or to have developed space flight. (No one here decided to "boldly go where none has gone before" because of an aspiring intellectual virtue, but because there was an arms race on which in the late 1950s came to the point of developing ICBMs to deliver payloads. When sputnick began beeping along in orbit, it was obvious to all the boys in the Pentagon that the Russians could as easily put a thermonuclear payload on the rockets as such a things as sputnik.)
Mostly, however, the huge energy and resource requirements necessary to undertake a large-scale program of interstellar flight, even just for automated probes, never mind sending out living sentients, suggests to me that the answer to the question of where is everybody is probably "At home."
Set, there are an estimated 7X10^22 stars in the known Universe. (and thats a guess based upon a "theoretical end point of imagination, not space) So Fermis question was totally "outside the box" . To call him a putz, lemme know when you win a Nobel prize after first putting together the concepts of how fission can be made manageable and Ill take your critique into consideration. Ros' point vis a vis, the Drake equation is quite valid (The Drake equation already takes into consideration the number of stars with solar sytsems , solar systems with suitable environments, those environments with lifeforms, those lifeforms with sentience, and those sentient lifeforms with advanced technology. Its a purely statistical WAG about a statistical 'calculation based upon the MEdiocrity Principle. Weve described an arc of diametr 200 light years with our early radio technology. I thin k that Fermis conclusion is that the amount of sentient life out there is extremely small (We dont have any valid data points as of yet , with which to even contour the frequency of occurrence) So were all guessing. That doesnt make Fermi a putz, Id love to be such a putz. (Not for the Nobel Prize but for taking a heretorfore theoretical priniple and converting it to the practical applied) Fermis Nobel prize was recognition for his work up to 1934 and his greatest applied tech work was done after he escaped from Italy. (I am greatly impressed by the non-theoretical becasue , in theory, it takes long to be proven wrong, In the applied, you get feedback really quickly)
Fermi, to me, was one of those geniuses who liked to fiddle around and make things out of other things that werent understood before. In that respect, he was like Craig Venter of today.
When we think about our sacred cows of science,we respect guys like Einstein who, stubborn as he was, failed to get the concept of Quantum Mechanics which Fermi used the principle of state to understand and "pilot" slow and fast neutrons through hunks of brick and sheets of aluminum , and he discovered that by the collective energy available within the concept of critical mass, we could make available great scads of energy for good or evil.
Putz's dont invent like that, putz's sit back and wonder what just happened. Spendi would be my perfect exmple of a putz, never ENrico Fermi.
