Total Posts:58|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Does Matter Inexorably Become Life?

Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 8:55:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I recently read an article written by Natalie Wolchover of Quanta Magazine in which she writes of a recent theory put forth by Jeremy England, a 30-year-old physicist at MIT, in which he proposes that life is likely to be a necessary result of matter being exposed to certain well-established physical properties. The article is here:

https://www.quantamagazine.org...

An article like this obviously has the potential to lead to a lot of emotional arguments, but from anyone who chooses to read it a well-reasoned response would be appreciated. :)
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 9:08:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I have an opposing theory: life came about, not because it was essential and had a probability of 1 due to certain factors (which is this article's breakthrough lmao), but because uh ......shine a torch on dirt and it becomes a plant!!
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 9:13:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Either that, or he's proposing some inherent sentience in matter which looks to dissipate energy... I really don't get this article at all. And not because it's going over my head.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 9:35:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 9:01:06 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
This is dumb, dude.

I don't think life is an automatic outcome of matter, but I do think life is a likely result in an environment which provides the basic needs of life. And since we're only familiar with Earthly life, we can't yet say what those basic needs are. So I partially agree with the article but not wholly and I think "this is dumb", is a bit shy of an appropriate response.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 9:37:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 9:35:16 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/3/2015 9:01:06 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
This is dumb, dude.

I don't think life is an automatic outcome of matter, but I do think life is a likely result in an environment which provides the basic needs of life. And since we're only familiar with Earthly life, we can't yet say what those basic needs are. So I partially agree with the article but not wholly and I think "this is dumb", is a bit shy of an appropriate response.

Meh. It was mostly just a wall of ridiculous pandering. Dude's just supposedly found easy-made building blocks.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 9:42:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 8:55:01 PM, Idealist wrote:
I recently read an article written by Natalie Wolchover of Quanta Magazine in which she writes of a recent theory put forth by Jeremy England, a 30-year-old physicist at MIT, in which he proposes that life is likely to be a necessary result of matter being exposed to certain well-established physical properties. The article is here:

https://www.quantamagazine.org...

An article like this obviously has the potential to lead to a lot of emotional arguments, but from anyone who chooses to read it a well-reasoned response would be appreciated. :)

Thanks for the Article. I have seen this concept put forward before. It was Richard Dawkins site but I was unable to relocate it.

In the design William Craig's fine0tuning argument, one premise is: If not chance or necessity then design. This is certainly making a case for necessity.

And I always thought this was funny. Because it seems the more Science moves forward the more it appears like theist conceptions.

Seems to be a bit of vapor ware to me. And the show around it is because secular scientist really wish for such mechanisms to be true. There have been a number of phenomena like Fibonacci sequence and Granular convection to show natural conditions can produce patterns. These patterns are generally fractal, repetitive from one scope to another.

there is a strong tendency in nature for things to find the path of least resistance. Proteins fold in the most efficient manner, lightning courses through a house along a path of least resistance, water droplets roll down a window, ....

This tendency has not been well explained. I think Jeremy England is on to a very important step to open that up. But not abiogenesis.

The rest seems to be trying to apply living characteristics to inanimate objects. Duplication is not reproduction. A game of Reversi is not an example of life. And the complexity of life is not in it's levels of symmetry, like a snow flake. The complexity of life is in the construction of it.

DNA is not an homogenous pattern like a snowflake or the replicating spheres.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

The lipid shell of the cell is asymmetric.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I like the implication because it is good math for advancing the understanding of an interesting observation. it's relation to life I think is sketchier.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 9:45:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
In fairness, I jumped the gun between the closed vs. open systems, but I want my 10k posts lol.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 9:58:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 9:37:46 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 1/3/2015 9:35:16 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/3/2015 9:01:06 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
This is dumb, dude.

I don't think life is an automatic outcome of matter, but I do think life is a likely result in an environment which provides the basic needs of life. And since we're only familiar with Earthly life, we can't yet say what those basic needs are. So I partially agree with the article but not wholly and I think "this is dumb", is a bit shy of an appropriate response.

Meh. It was mostly just a wall of ridiculous pandering. Dude's just supposedly found easy-made building blocks.

One of the realizations most people don't seem to grasp is that life-like behaviors can and do arise from very simplistic chemical interactions, and that life needn't be nearly as complex as today's simplest single-cell organisms. So it's not ridiculous pandering, though I believe the case was over-stated.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 10:03:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 9:45:38 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
In fairness, I jumped the gun between the closed vs. open systems, but I want my 10k posts lol.

Others might focus on quality.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 10:04:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 10:03:18 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/3/2015 9:45:38 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
In fairness, I jumped the gun between the closed vs. open systems, but I want my 10k posts lol.

Others might focus on quality.

I told a fair story regardless. :)
Gentorev
Posts: 2,948
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 10:08:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 9:35:16 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/3/2015 9:01:06 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
This is dumb, dude.

I don't think life is an automatic outcome of matter, but I do think life is a likely result in an environment which provides the basic needs of life. And since we're only familiar with Earthly life, we can't yet say what those basic needs are. So I partially agree with the article but not wholly and I think "this is dumb", is a bit shy of an appropriate response.

Good one Beastt, on this point I have to agree with you, and if we were to take it a little further, I believe that we could come to some sort of agreement that the life that has evolved so far has the possibility of evolving even further, even to the evolution of a being who can occupy the dimensions of both matter and anti-matter.

The age of our present physical universe gives too little time for these theories of biogenesis to get the job done. The philosophical question that has not been answered in origin-of-life studies is this: How can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic ends, self- replication capabilities, and "coded chemistry"? Here we are not dealing with biology, but an entirely different category of problem." [..wikipedia]
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 10:13:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 10:08:42 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 1/3/2015 9:35:16 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/3/2015 9:01:06 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:

This is dumb, dude.

I don't think life is an automatic outcome of matter, but I do think life is a likely result in an environment which provides the basic needs of life. And since we're only familiar with Earthly life, we can't yet say what those basic needs are. So I partially agree with the article but not wholly and I think "this is dumb", is a bit shy of an appropriate response.

Good one Beastt, on this point I have to agree with you, and if we were to take it a little further, I believe that we could come to some sort of agreement that the life that has evolved so far has the possibility of evolving even further, even to the evolution of a being who can occupy the dimensions of both matter and anti-matter.
What would lead you to believe that anti-matter occupies a different dimension than matter?

The age of our present physical universe gives too little time for these theories of biogenesis to get the job done.
That statement is purely incorrect. Take a look at the video. Jump forward to 6:00 to see what 4 or 5 chemicals in a water solution can do.

The philosophical question that has not been answered in origin-of-life studies is this: How can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic ends, self- replication capabilities, and "coded chemistry"? Here we are not dealing with biology, but an entirely different category of problem." [..wikipedia]

The answer to your question is; Chaos Theory - the emergence of order and patterns from apparent chaos, based on the underlying orderly structure of matter.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 10:43:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 9:42:29 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/3/2015 8:55:01 PM, Idealist wrote:
I recently read an article written by Natalie Wolchover of Quanta Magazine in which she writes of a recent theory put forth by Jeremy England, a 30-year-old physicist at MIT, in which he proposes that life is likely to be a necessary result of matter being exposed to certain well-established physical properties. The article is here:

https://www.quantamagazine.org...

An article like this obviously has the potential to lead to a lot of emotional arguments, but from anyone who chooses to read it a well-reasoned response would be appreciated. :)

Thanks for the Article. I have seen this concept put forward before. It was Richard Dawkins site but I was unable to relocate it.

In the design William Craig's fine0tuning argument, one premise is: If not chance or necessity then design. This is certainly making a case for necessity.

And I always thought this was funny. Because it seems the more Science moves forward the more it appears like theist conceptions.

This is something which I have noticed as well.

Seems to be a bit of vapor ware to me. And the show around it is because secular scientist really wish for such mechanisms to be true. There have been a number of phenomena like Fibonacci sequence and Granular convection to show natural conditions can produce patterns. These patterns are generally fractal, repetitive from one scope to another.

there is a strong tendency in nature for things to find the path of least resistance. Proteins fold in the most efficient manner, lightning courses through a house along a path of least resistance, water droplets roll down a window, ....

This tendency has not been well explained. I think Jeremy England is on to a very important step to open that up. But not abiogenesis.

The rest seems to be trying to apply living characteristics to inanimate objects. Duplication is not reproduction. A game of Reversi is not an example of life. And the complexity of life is not in it's levels of symmetry, like a snow flake. The complexity of life is in the construction of it.

DNA is not an homogenous pattern like a snowflake or the replicating spheres.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

The lipid shell of the cell is asymmetric.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I'm glad you pointed these things out. I get so tired of having people try to use the complexity of a snowflake as a way to compete with the complexity of DNA, seemingly not even realizing how clearly it shows what they don't understand.

I like the implication because it is good math for advancing the understanding of an interesting observation. it's relation to life I think is sketchier.

Thank you for a good response. It really gave me some things to consider, even though I already agree with most of it.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 10:49:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 9:13:36 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Either that, or he's proposing some inherent sentience in matter which looks to dissipate energy... I really don't get this article at all. And not because it's going over my head.

Does it remind you of a recent similar proposal which suggested that the universe itself might have not only created itself, but that such occurrence was virtually inevitable?
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 10:53:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 10:49:43 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/3/2015 9:13:36 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Either that, or he's proposing some inherent sentience in matter which looks to dissipate energy... I really don't get this article at all. And not because it's going over my head.

Does it remind you of a recent similar proposal which suggested that the universe itself might have not only created itself, but that such occurrence was virtually inevitable?

Not that I'm aware of. That bit was just with trolly reference to his ideas being called 'bold'.

None of this stuff interests me, to be honest. Life will forever be a mystery, no matter how much we try to whittle it down. Infinity will forever lurk behind the curtain. Consciousness will forever remain a singularity.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 10:54:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 9:35:16 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/3/2015 9:01:06 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
This is dumb, dude.

I don't think life is an automatic outcome of matter, but I do think life is a likely result in an environment which provides the basic needs of life. And since we're only familiar with Earthly life, we can't yet say what those basic needs are. So I partially agree with the article but not wholly and I think "this is dumb", is a bit shy of an appropriate response.

Yes, it is a bit shy of a thoughtful response. So you believe that life is simply an emergent phenomenon bound to occur if all the physical criteria are met? That seems to be a common perception of intelligence - that it will emerge on its own if the computing requirements are met.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 10:56:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 10:13:15 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/3/2015 10:08:42 PM, Gentorev wrote:
At 1/3/2015 9:35:16 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/3/2015 9:01:06 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:

This is dumb, dude.

I don't think life is an automatic outcome of matter, but I do think life is a likely result in an environment which provides the basic needs of life. And since we're only familiar with Earthly life, we can't yet say what those basic needs are. So I partially agree with the article but not wholly and I think "this is dumb", is a bit shy of an appropriate response.

Good one Beastt, on this point I have to agree with you, and if we were to take it a little further, I believe that we could come to some sort of agreement that the life that has evolved so far has the possibility of evolving even further, even to the evolution of a being who can occupy the dimensions of both matter and anti-matter.
What would lead you to believe that anti-matter occupies a different dimension than matter?

The age of our present physical universe gives too little time for these theories of biogenesis to get the job done.
That statement is purely incorrect. Take a look at the video. Jump forward to 6:00 to see what 4 or 5 chemicals in a water solution can do.

The philosophical question that has not been answered in origin-of-life studies is this: How can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic ends, self- replication capabilities, and "coded chemistry"? Here we are not dealing with biology, but an entirely different category of problem." [..wikipedia]

The answer to your question is; Chaos Theory - the emergence of order and patterns from apparent chaos, based on the underlying orderly structure of matter.

Martin Hanczyc is talking about human (intelligent chemists) designing life. The techniques they use are expensive, extremely delicate, and intelligently governed. Nearly none of it should infer support to an abiogenesis hypothesis.

Plus that droplet in water. Hanczyc used nitrobenzene oil. He put them into an alkaline solution (pH 12) and inserted a chemical called oleic anhydride, which converts to oleic acid on contact with water. This reaction lowered the pH at the boundary of droplets, creating an uneven surface tension that caused them to move around.

I've seen that same kind of motion from a ballon with a hole in it. A ballon is an example of purposeful dynamic motion akin to life!! wow
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 11:01:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 10:53:53 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 1/3/2015 10:49:43 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/3/2015 9:13:36 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Either that, or he's proposing some inherent sentience in matter which looks to dissipate energy... I really don't get this article at all. And not because it's going over my head.

Does it remind you of a recent similar proposal which suggested that the universe itself might have not only created itself, but that such occurrence was virtually inevitable?

Not that I'm aware of. That bit was just with trolly reference to his ideas being called 'bold'.

None of this stuff interests me, to be honest. Life will forever be a mystery, no matter how much we try to whittle it down. Infinity will forever lurk behind the curtain. Consciousness will forever remain a singularity.

These are things I agree with. The concept of eternity is one thing, but the idea that we can conceptualize the enormity of it within our minds is simply not plausible. I'm not sure what you mean by saying that "consciousness will forever remain a singularity." There is more than one way to interpret that, but I do believe that it's probably not possible for us to ever fully comprehend the completeness of our being.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 11:01:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Existence is, by logical necessity, insensible. No matter how much work you put into telling me I came from such and such a place, I am still a singularity, and there will never be any absolute answer, for all we can even hope to understand is cause and effect, and that stretches on forever. Honestly, I think the man who denies God is daft. Prayer and pragmatism, friends.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 11:02:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 9:37:46 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 1/3/2015 9:35:16 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 1/3/2015 9:01:06 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
This is dumb, dude.

I don't think life is an automatic outcome of matter, but I do think life is a likely result in an environment which provides the basic needs of life. And since we're only familiar with Earthly life, we can't yet say what those basic needs are. So I partially agree with the article but not wholly and I think "this is dumb", is a bit shy of an appropriate response.

Meh. It was mostly just a wall of ridiculous pandering. Dude's just supposedly found easy-made building blocks.

That's an interesting take on the article...
RevNge
Posts: 13,835
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 11:03:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 9:01:06 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
This is dumb, dude.

Badger in the religion forum...

*grabs popcorn*
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 11:04:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 11:01:10 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/3/2015 10:53:53 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 1/3/2015 10:49:43 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/3/2015 9:13:36 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Either that, or he's proposing some inherent sentience in matter which looks to dissipate energy... I really don't get this article at all. And not because it's going over my head.

Does it remind you of a recent similar proposal which suggested that the universe itself might have not only created itself, but that such occurrence was virtually inevitable?

Not that I'm aware of. That bit was just with trolly reference to his ideas being called 'bold'.

None of this stuff interests me, to be honest. Life will forever be a mystery, no matter how much we try to whittle it down. Infinity will forever lurk behind the curtain. Consciousness will forever remain a singularity.

These are things I agree with. The concept of eternity is one thing, but the idea that we can conceptualize the enormity of it within our minds is simply not plausible. I'm not sure what you mean by saying that "consciousness will forever remain a singularity." There is more than one way to interpret that, but I do believe that it's probably not possible for us to ever fully comprehend the completeness of our being.

I'll try to explain it then. Consider the possibility for example that this is all but an illusion, that there is only this instant, only you, that all random has aligned just for right now to create the illusion of past, present, future, memory, all these notions of science, of other people, etc., only to scatter again into the eternal nothingness in the next moment......This is the singularity of your mind. These things can never be known to be untrue.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 11:05:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 9:45:38 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
In fairness, I jumped the gun between the closed vs. open systems, but I want my 10k posts lol.

Dang, you're almost there! lol I think that when you are that close then it's acceptable. :)
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 11:06:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 11:05:07 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/3/2015 9:45:38 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
In fairness, I jumped the gun between the closed vs. open systems, but I want my 10k posts lol.

Dang, you're almost there! lol I think that when you are that close then it's acceptable. :)

lol, cheers mate!
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 11:10:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 11:04:41 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 1/3/2015 11:01:10 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/3/2015 10:53:53 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 1/3/2015 10:49:43 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/3/2015 9:13:36 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Either that, or he's proposing some inherent sentience in matter which looks to dissipate energy... I really don't get this article at all. And not because it's going over my head.

Does it remind you of a recent similar proposal which suggested that the universe itself might have not only created itself, but that such occurrence was virtually inevitable?

Not that I'm aware of. That bit was just with trolly reference to his ideas being called 'bold'.

None of this stuff interests me, to be honest. Life will forever be a mystery, no matter how much we try to whittle it down. Infinity will forever lurk behind the curtain. Consciousness will forever remain a singularity.

These are things I agree with. The concept of eternity is one thing, but the idea that we can conceptualize the enormity of it within our minds is simply not plausible. I'm not sure what you mean by saying that "consciousness will forever remain a singularity." There is more than one way to interpret that, but I do believe that it's probably not possible for us to ever fully comprehend the completeness of our being.

I'll try to explain it then. Consider the possibility for example that this is all but an illusion, that there is only this instant, only you, that all random has aligned just for right now to create the illusion of past, present, future, memory, all these notions of science, of other people, etc., only to scatter again into the eternal nothingness in the next moment......This is the singularity of your mind. These things can never be known to be untrue.

Oh, okay. I see what you are saying. I've heard people say that before, and it's a very interesting idea. I've always been interested by the proposal that according to Einstein's description of "spacetime" then all time (past, present and future) should exist like space does, all there simultaneously but in different areas of the universe.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 11:10:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 11:04:41 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 1/3/2015 11:01:10 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/3/2015 10:53:53 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 1/3/2015 10:49:43 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/3/2015 9:13:36 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Either that, or he's proposing some inherent sentience in matter which looks to dissipate energy... I really don't get this article at all. And not because it's going over my head.

Does it remind you of a recent similar proposal which suggested that the universe itself might have not only created itself, but that such occurrence was virtually inevitable?

Not that I'm aware of. That bit was just with trolly reference to his ideas being called 'bold'.

None of this stuff interests me, to be honest. Life will forever be a mystery, no matter how much we try to whittle it down. Infinity will forever lurk behind the curtain. Consciousness will forever remain a singularity.

These are things I agree with. The concept of eternity is one thing, but the idea that we can conceptualize the enormity of it within our minds is simply not plausible. I'm not sure what you mean by saying that "consciousness will forever remain a singularity." There is more than one way to interpret that, but I do believe that it's probably not possible for us to ever fully comprehend the completeness of our being.

I'll try to explain it then. Consider the possibility for example that this is all but an illusion, that there is only this instant, only you, that all random has aligned just for right now to create the illusion of past, present, future, memory, all these notions of science, of other people, etc., only to scatter again into the eternal nothingness in the next moment......This is the singularity of your mind. These things can never be known to be untrue.

Problem of induction hardcore mode, basically.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 11:12:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 11:10:40 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/3/2015 11:04:41 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 1/3/2015 11:01:10 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/3/2015 10:53:53 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 1/3/2015 10:49:43 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/3/2015 9:13:36 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Either that, or he's proposing some inherent sentience in matter which looks to dissipate energy... I really don't get this article at all. And not because it's going over my head.

Does it remind you of a recent similar proposal which suggested that the universe itself might have not only created itself, but that such occurrence was virtually inevitable?

Not that I'm aware of. That bit was just with trolly reference to his ideas being called 'bold'.

None of this stuff interests me, to be honest. Life will forever be a mystery, no matter how much we try to whittle it down. Infinity will forever lurk behind the curtain. Consciousness will forever remain a singularity.

These are things I agree with. The concept of eternity is one thing, but the idea that we can conceptualize the enormity of it within our minds is simply not plausible. I'm not sure what you mean by saying that "consciousness will forever remain a singularity." There is more than one way to interpret that, but I do believe that it's probably not possible for us to ever fully comprehend the completeness of our being.

I'll try to explain it then. Consider the possibility for example that this is all but an illusion, that there is only this instant, only you, that all random has aligned just for right now to create the illusion of past, present, future, memory, all these notions of science, of other people, etc., only to scatter again into the eternal nothingness in the next moment......This is the singularity of your mind. These things can never be known to be untrue.

Oh, okay. I see what you are saying. I've heard people say that before, and it's a very interesting idea. I've always been interested by the proposal that according to Einstein's description of "spacetime" then all time (past, present and future) should exist like space does, all there simultaneously but in different areas of the universe.

That's kinda different, but Einstein was indeed a cool f*cking dude.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 11:13:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 11:01:10 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/3/2015 10:53:53 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 1/3/2015 10:49:43 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/3/2015 9:13:36 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Either that, or he's proposing some inherent sentience in matter which looks to dissipate energy... I really don't get this article at all. And not because it's going over my head.

Does it remind you of a recent similar proposal which suggested that the universe itself might have not only created itself, but that such occurrence was virtually inevitable?

Not that I'm aware of. That bit was just with trolly reference to his ideas being called 'bold'.

None of this stuff interests me, to be honest. Life will forever be a mystery, no matter how much we try to whittle it down. Infinity will forever lurk behind the curtain. Consciousness will forever remain a singularity.

These are things I agree with. The concept of eternity is one thing, but the idea that we can conceptualize the enormity of it within our minds is simply not plausible. I'm not sure what you mean by saying that "consciousness will forever remain a singularity." There is more than one way to interpret that, but I do believe that it's probably not possible for us to ever fully comprehend the completeness of our being.

In math and physics, a singularity is not exactly it's colloquial use. A singularity is a region of space that can not be represented as points. It is recognized by the region it does not inhabit.

One may say Consciences is not something you can point to, but it is found looking between where you can point?
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2015 11:21:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/3/2015 11:13:40 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/3/2015 11:01:10 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/3/2015 10:53:53 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
At 1/3/2015 10:49:43 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 1/3/2015 9:13:36 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Either that, or he's proposing some inherent sentience in matter which looks to dissipate energy... I really don't get this article at all. And not because it's going over my head.

Does it remind you of a recent similar proposal which suggested that the universe itself might have not only created itself, but that such occurrence was virtually inevitable?

Not that I'm aware of. That bit was just with trolly reference to his ideas being called 'bold'.

None of this stuff interests me, to be honest. Life will forever be a mystery, no matter how much we try to whittle it down. Infinity will forever lurk behind the curtain. Consciousness will forever remain a singularity.

These are things I agree with. The concept of eternity is one thing, but the idea that we can conceptualize the enormity of it within our minds is simply not plausible. I'm not sure what you mean by saying that "consciousness will forever remain a singularity." There is more than one way to interpret that, but I do believe that it's probably not possible for us to ever fully comprehend the completeness of our being.

In math and physics, a singularity is not exactly it's colloquial use. A singularity is a region of space that can not be represented as points. It is recognized by the region it does not inhabit.

One may say Consciences is not something you can point to, but it is found looking between where you can point?

I've heard that basic definition before, but I like the way you put it better.