Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Where does the information come from?

socratus
Posts: 102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 8:22:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Where does the information come from?
/ Quantum Theory as Quantum Information /
=="
Does information begin on the quarks level?
No. Quark cannot leave an atom.
Maybe does proton have quant of information?
No. Single proton has no quant of information.
Why?
Because information can be transfered only by
electromagnetic fields. And we don"t have a theory
about protono-magnetic fields.
#
In our earthly world there is only one fundamental
particle - electron who can transfer information.
Can an electron be quant of information?
Maybe at first glance this seems to be a rather senseless questions.
But . . . . .
Energy is electromagnetic waves (em).
In 1904 Lorentz proved: there isn"t em waves without Electron
It means the source of these em waves must be an Electron
The electron and the em waves they are physical reality
==============
1900, 1905
Planck and Einstein found the energy of electron: E=h*f.
1916
Sommerfeld found the formula of electron : e^2=ah*c,
it means: e = +ah*c and e = -ah*c.
1928
Dirac found two more formulas of electron"s energy:
+E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2.
According to QED in interaction with vacuum electron"s
energy is infinite: E= ∞
Questions
Why does the simplest particle - electron have six ( 6 ) formulas ?
Why does electron obey five ( 5) Laws ?
a) Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass
b) Maxwell"s equations
c) Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law
d) Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law
e) Fermi-Dirac statistics

What is an electron ?
Now nobody knows
In the internet we can read hundreds theories about electron
All of them are problematical
We can read hundreds books about philosophy of physics.
But how can we trust them if we don"t know what is electron ?
=.
Quote by Heinrich Hertz on Maxwell's equations:
"One cannot escape the feeling that these mathematical formulae
have an independent existence and an intelligence of their own,
that they are wiser than we are, wiser even than their discoverers,
that we get more out of them than was originally put into them."
==.
Ladies and Gentlemen !
Friends !
The banal Electron is not as simple as we think and, maybe,
he is much wiser than we are.
==.
We know, there is no information transfer
without energy transfer. More correct: there is no quant
information transfer without quant energy transfer.
And the electron has the least electric charge.
It means it has some quant of the least information.
What can electron do with this information?
Let us look the Mendeleev / Moseley periodic table.
We can see that electron interacts with proton
and creates atom of hydrogen.
This is simplest design, which was created by electron.
And we can see how this information grows and reaches
high informational level. And the most complex design,
which was created by electron is the Man.
The Man is alive essence. Animals, birds, fish are alive essences.
And an atom? And atom is also alive design.
The free atom of hydrogen can live about 1000 seconds.
And someone a long time ago has already said, that if to give
suffices time to atom of hydrogen, he would turn into Man.
Maybe it is better not to search about "dark, virtual particles "
but to understand what the electron is,
because even now nobody knows what electron is.
==.
In my opinion the Electron is quant of information.
Was I mistaken? No !
Because according to Pauli Exclusion Principle
only one single electron can be in the atom.
This electron reanimates the atom.
This electron manages the atom.
If the atom contains more than one electron
(for example - two), this atom represents " Siamese twins".
Save us, the Great God, of having such atoms, such children!
Each of us has an Electron, but we do not know it.
#
Many years ago man has accustomed some wild
animals (wolf, horse, cat, bull , etc.)
and has made them domestic ones.
But the man understands badly the four-footed friends.
In 1897 J. J. Thomson discovered new particle - electron.
Gradually man has accustomed electron to work for him.
But the man does not understand what an electron is.

By my peasant logic at first it is better to understand
the closest and simplest particle photon /electron and
then to study the far away space and another particles.
==.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
==.
P.S.
Book " The big questions" by Michael Brooks.
' Where did the information go?
The laws of physics dictate that information, like energy,
cannot be destroyed, which means it must go somewhere."
/ Page 195-196./
=="
The secret of God and Existence is hidden
in the ' Theory of Vacuum and Light Quanta' .
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 12:37:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 8:22:49 AM, socratus wrote:
Where does the information come from?
/ Quantum Theory as Quantum Information /
=="
Does information begin on the quarks level?
No. Quark cannot leave an atom.
Maybe does proton have quant of information?
No. Single proton has no quant of information.
Why?
Because information can be transfered only by
electromagnetic fields. And we don"t have a theory
about protono-magnetic fields.
#
In our earthly world there is only one fundamental
particle - electron who can transfer information.
Can an electron be quant of information?
Maybe at first glance this seems to be a rather senseless questions.
But . . . . .
Energy is electromagnetic waves (em).
In 1904 Lorentz proved: there isn"t em waves without Electron
It means the source of these em waves must be an Electron
The electron and the em waves they are physical reality
==============
1900, 1905
Planck and Einstein found the energy of electron: E=h*f.
1916
Sommerfeld found the formula of electron : e^2=ah*c,
it means: e = +ah*c and e = -ah*c.
1928
Dirac found two more formulas of electron"s energy:
+E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2.
According to QED in interaction with vacuum electron"s
energy is infinite: E= ∞
Questions
Why does the simplest particle - electron have six ( 6 ) formulas ?
Why does electron obey five ( 5) Laws ?
a) Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass
b) Maxwell"s equations
c) Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law
d) Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law
e) Fermi-Dirac statistics

What is an electron ?
Now nobody knows
In the internet we can read hundreds theories about electron
All of them are problematical
We can read hundreds books about philosophy of physics.
But how can we trust them if we don"t know what is electron ?
=.
Quote by Heinrich Hertz on Maxwell's equations:
"One cannot escape the feeling that these mathematical formulae
have an independent existence and an intelligence of their own,
that they are wiser than we are, wiser even than their discoverers,
that we get more out of them than was originally put into them."
==.
Ladies and Gentlemen !
Friends !
The banal Electron is not as simple as we think and, maybe,
he is much wiser than we are.
==.
We know, there is no information transfer
without energy transfer. More correct: there is no quant
information transfer without quant energy transfer.
And the electron has the least electric charge.
It means it has some quant of the least information.
What can electron do with this information?
Let us look the Mendeleev / Moseley periodic table.
We can see that electron interacts with proton
and creates atom of hydrogen.
This is simplest design, which was created by electron.
And we can see how this information grows and reaches
high informational level. And the most complex design,
which was created by electron is the Man.
The Man is alive essence. Animals, birds, fish are alive essences.
And an atom? And atom is also alive design.
The free atom of hydrogen can live about 1000 seconds.
And someone a long time ago has already said, that if to give
suffices time to atom of hydrogen, he would turn into Man.
Maybe it is better not to search about "dark, virtual particles "
but to understand what the electron is,
because even now nobody knows what electron is.
==.
In my opinion the Electron is quant of information.
Was I mistaken? No !
Because according to Pauli Exclusion Principle
only one single electron can be in the atom.
This electron reanimates the atom.
This electron manages the atom.
If the atom contains more than one electron
(for example - two), this atom represents " Siamese twins".
Save us, the Great God, of having such atoms, such children!
Each of us has an Electron, but we do not know it.
#
Many years ago man has accustomed some wild
animals (wolf, horse, cat, bull , etc.)
and has made them domestic ones.
But the man understands badly the four-footed friends.
In 1897 J. J. Thomson discovered new particle - electron.
Gradually man has accustomed electron to work for him.
But the man does not understand what an electron is.

By my peasant logic at first it is better to understand
the closest and simplest particle photon /electron and
then to study the far away space and another particles.
==.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
==.
P.S.
Book " The big questions" by Michael Brooks.
' Where did the information go?
The laws of physics dictate that information, like energy,
cannot be destroyed, which means it must go somewhere."
/ Page 195-196./
=="



Great Post.

Quote by Heinrich Hertz on Maxwell's equations:
"One cannot escape the feeling that these mathematical formulae
have an independent existence and an intelligence of their own,
that they are wiser than we are, wiser even than their discoverers,
that we get more out of them than was originally put into them."
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 7:53:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 8:22:49 AM, socratus wrote:
Where does the information come from?
/ Quantum Theory as Quantum Information /
=="
Does information begin on the quarks level?
No. Quark cannot leave an atom.
Maybe does proton have quant of information?
No. Single proton has no quant of information.
Why?
Because information can be transfered only by
electromagnetic fields. And we don"t have a theory
about protono-magnetic fields.
#
In our earthly world there is only one fundamental
particle - electron who can transfer information.
Can an electron be quant of information?
Maybe at first glance this seems to be a rather senseless questions.
But . . . . .
Energy is electromagnetic waves (em).
In 1904 Lorentz proved: there isn"t em waves without Electron
It means the source of these em waves must be an Electron
The electron and the em waves they are physical reality
==============
1900, 1905
Planck and Einstein found the energy of electron: E=h*f.
1916
Sommerfeld found the formula of electron : e^2=ah*c,
it means: e = +ah*c and e = -ah*c.
1928
Dirac found two more formulas of electron"s energy:
+E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2.
According to QED in interaction with vacuum electron"s
energy is infinite: E= ∞
Questions
Why does the simplest particle - electron have six ( 6 ) formulas ?
Why does electron obey five ( 5) Laws ?
a) Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass
b) Maxwell"s equations
c) Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law
d) Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law
e) Fermi-Dirac statistics

What is an electron ?
Now nobody knows
In the internet we can read hundreds theories about electron
All of them are problematical
We can read hundreds books about philosophy of physics.
But how can we trust them if we don"t know what is electron ?
=.
Quote by Heinrich Hertz on Maxwell's equations:
"One cannot escape the feeling that these mathematical formulae
have an independent existence and an intelligence of their own,
that they are wiser than we are, wiser even than their discoverers,
that we get more out of them than was originally put into them."
==.
Ladies and Gentlemen !
Friends !
The banal Electron is not as simple as we think and, maybe,
he is much wiser than we are.
==.
We know, there is no information transfer
without energy transfer. More correct: there is no quant
information transfer without quant energy transfer.
And the electron has the least electric charge.
It means it has some quant of the least information.
What can electron do with this information?
Let us look the Mendeleev / Moseley periodic table.
We can see that electron interacts with proton
and creates atom of hydrogen.
This is simplest design, which was created by electron.
And we can see how this information grows and reaches
high informational level. And the most complex design,
which was created by electron is the Man.
The Man is alive essence. Animals, birds, fish are alive essences.
And an atom? And atom is also alive design.
The free atom of hydrogen can live about 1000 seconds.
And someone a long time ago has already said, that if to give
suffices time to atom of hydrogen, he would turn into Man.
Maybe it is better not to search about "dark, virtual particles "
but to understand what the electron is,
because even now nobody knows what electron is.
==.
In my opinion the Electron is quant of information.
Was I mistaken? No !
Because according to Pauli Exclusion Principle
only one single electron can be in the atom.
This electron reanimates the atom.
This electron manages the atom.
If the atom contains more than one electron
(for example - two), this atom represents " Siamese twins".
Save us, the Great God, of having such atoms, such children!
Each of us has an Electron, but we do not know it.
#
Many years ago man has accustomed some wild
animals (wolf, horse, cat, bull , etc.)
and has made them domestic ones.
But the man understands badly the four-footed friends.
In 1897 J. J. Thomson discovered new particle - electron.
Gradually man has accustomed electron to work for him.
But the man does not understand what an electron is.

By my peasant logic at first it is better to understand
the closest and simplest particle photon /electron and
then to study the far away space and another particles.
==.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
==.
P.S.
Book " The big questions" by Michael Brooks.
' Where did the information go?
The laws of physics dictate that information, like energy,
cannot be destroyed, which means it must go somewhere."
/ Page 195-196./
=="



Can someone give me a tl;dr version of this.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2013 11:21:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's important to differentiate information as syntax and the actual physical process to which syntax is assigned.

For instance, you can assign a binary syntax to DNA, and using this syntax you can predict the actions of DNA. However, you can also assign a system where each "bit" has four options, one for each nucleotide. A different set of predictions come up.

At no point is the syntax actually inherent to the physical processes. The physical process of transcription, where a particular nucleotide is copied, is not dependent on any kind of syntax.

So while Maxwell's equations are examples of information as syntax, the action of an electron excluding another and thus changing chemical composition is information as a physical process.
socratus
Posts: 102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2013 3:32:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/18/2013 11:21:27 PM, Wnope wrote:
It's important to differentiate information as syntax and
the actual physical process to which syntax is assigned.

For instance, you can assign a binary syntax to DNA,
and using this syntax you can predict the actions of DNA.
However, you can also assign a system where each "bit" has
four options, one for each nucleotide.
A different set of predictions come up.
=================================.

Does DNA know geometry ?
Did DNA create child from zygote by the chance ?
=.
The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys
at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time
will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works
of William Shakespeare.
The probability of a monkey exactly typing a complete work such
as Shakespeare's Hamlet is so tiny that the chance of it occurring
during a period of time of the order of the age of the universe
is extremely low, but not zero.
. . . . .
If there are as many monkeys as there are particles in the
observable universe . . . . the probability of the monkeys replicating
even a short book is nearly zero.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

It means that according to Probability theory it is impossible
to create by chance Intellect Existence during 14 billions years
after "big bang".

Another example.

Proteins With Only Left-Handed Components
http://creationsafaris.com...

The probability that an average-size protein molecule of the smallest
theoretically possible living thing would happen to contain only
left-handed amino acids is, therefore, 1 in 10123, on the average.
That is a rather discouraging chance.
To get the feel of that number, let"s look at it with all the 123 zeros:
There is, on the average, 1 chance in "
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
that all of the amino acids of a particular protein molecule
would be left-handed!

Conclusion: No Conceivable Probability

We find that there is no lessening of confusion until one accepts
the logic that "intelligent" systems could not arise without
an intelligent Designer.
http://creationsafaris.com...
#
According to the probability theory to create the origin of life
from ' the soup ' of proteins by the chance is 1 from 10^(-255).
This quantity is so small that it seems this way of creation
is impossible : not by chance the existence began.
==.
Question.
Does DNA have consciousness to create an intellectual child from zygote?
==="
The secret of God and Existence is hidden
in the ' Theory of Vacuum and Light Quanta' .
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 5:22:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/19/2013 3:32:24 AM, socratus wrote:
At 1/18/2013 11:21:27 PM, Wnope wrote:
It's important to differentiate information as syntax and
the actual physical process to which syntax is assigned.

For instance, you can assign a binary syntax to DNA,
and using this syntax you can predict the actions of DNA.
However, you can also assign a system where each "bit" has
four options, one for each nucleotide.
A different set of predictions come up.
=================================.

Does DNA know geometry ?
Did DNA create child from zygote by the chance ?
=.
The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys
at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time
will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works
of William Shakespeare.
The probability of a monkey exactly typing a complete work such
as Shakespeare's Hamlet is so tiny that the chance of it occurring
during a period of time of the order of the age of the universe
is extremely low, but not zero.
. . . . .
If there are as many monkeys as there are particles in the
observable universe . . . . the probability of the monkeys replicating
even a short book is nearly zero.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

It means that according to Probability theory it is impossible
to create by chance Intellect Existence during 14 billions years
after "big bang".

Another example.

Proteins With Only Left-Handed Components
http://creationsafaris.com...

The probability that an average-size protein molecule of the smallest
theoretically possible living thing would happen to contain only
left-handed amino acids is, therefore, 1 in 10123, on the average.
That is a rather discouraging chance.
To get the feel of that number, let"s look at it with all the 123 zeros:
There is, on the average, 1 chance in "
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
that all of the amino acids of a particular protein molecule
would be left-handed!

Conclusion: No Conceivable Probability

We find that there is no lessening of confusion until one accepts
the logic that "intelligent" systems could not arise without
an intelligent Designer.
http://creationsafaris.com...
#
According to the probability theory to create the origin of life
from ' the soup ' of proteins by the chance is 1 from 10^(-255).
This quantity is so small that it seems this way of creation
is impossible : not by chance the existence began.
==.
Question.
Does DNA have consciousness to create an intellectual child from zygote?
==="

You have been doing your homework and I like your style.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 6:28:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/19/2013 3:32:24 AM, socratus wrote:
At 1/18/2013 11:21:27 PM, Wnope wrote:
It's important to differentiate information as syntax and
the actual physical process to which syntax is assigned.

For instance, you can assign a binary syntax to DNA,
and using this syntax you can predict the actions of DNA.
However, you can also assign a system where each "bit" has
four options, one for each nucleotide.
A different set of predictions come up.
=================================.

Does DNA know geometry ?
Did DNA create child from zygote by the chance ?
=.
The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys
at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time
will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works
of William Shakespeare.
The probability of a monkey exactly typing a complete work such
as Shakespeare's Hamlet is so tiny that the chance of it occurring
during a period of time of the order of the age of the universe
is extremely low, but not zero.
. . . . .
If there are as many monkeys as there are particles in the
observable universe . . . . the probability of the monkeys replicating
even a short book is nearly zero.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

It means that according to Probability theory it is impossible
to create by chance Intellect Existence during 14 billions years
after "big bang".

Another example.

Proteins With Only Left-Handed Components
http://creationsafaris.com...

The probability that an average-size protein molecule of the smallest
theoretically possible living thing would happen to contain only
left-handed amino acids is, therefore, 1 in 10123, on the average.
That is a rather discouraging chance.
To get the feel of that number, let"s look at it with all the 123 zeros:
There is, on the average, 1 chance in "
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
that all of the amino acids of a particular protein molecule
would be left-handed!

Most people just don't get the significance of exponentials and magnitude, here's a factoid I think you can use, the estimated number of atoms in the visible universe is only 10 to the 80 power.

Conclusion: No Conceivable Probability

We find that there is no lessening of confusion until one accepts
the logic that "intelligent" systems could not arise without
an intelligent Designer.
http://creationsafaris.com...
#
According to the probability theory to create the origin of life
from ' the soup ' of proteins by the chance is 1 from 10^(-255).
This quantity is so small that it seems this way of creation
is impossible : not by chance the existence began.
==.
Question.
Does DNA have consciousness to create an intellectual child from zygote?
==="

Have you read Gerald Schroeder, if not I'd highly recommend him, I think you'll love his books.

http://www.geraldschroeder.com...
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 3:20:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/19/2013 3:32:24 AM, socratus wrote:
At 1/18/2013 11:21:27 PM, Wnope wrote:
It's important to differentiate information as syntax and
the actual physical process to which syntax is assigned.

For instance, you can assign a binary syntax to DNA,
and using this syntax you can predict the actions of DNA.
However, you can also assign a system where each "bit" has
four options, one for each nucleotide.
A different set of predictions come up.
=================================.

Does DNA know geometry ?
Did DNA create child from zygote by the chance ?
=.
The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys
at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time
will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works
of William Shakespeare.
The probability of a monkey exactly typing a complete work such
as Shakespeare's Hamlet is so tiny that the chance of it occurring
during a period of time of the order of the age of the universe
is extremely low, but not zero.
. . . . .
If there are as many monkeys as there are particles in the
observable universe . . . . the probability of the monkeys replicating
even a short book is nearly zero.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

It means that according to Probability theory it is impossible
to create by chance Intellect Existence during 14 billions years
after "big bang".

Another example.

Proteins With Only Left-Handed Components
http://creationsafaris.com...

The probability that an average-size protein molecule of the smallest
theoretically possible living thing would happen to contain only
left-handed amino acids is, therefore, 1 in 10123, on the average.
That is a rather discouraging chance.
To get the feel of that number, let"s look at it with all the 123 zeros:
There is, on the average, 1 chance in "
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
that all of the amino acids of a particular protein molecule
would be left-handed!

Conclusion: No Conceivable Probability

We find that there is no lessening of confusion until one accepts
the logic that "intelligent" systems could not arise without
an intelligent Designer.
http://creationsafaris.com...
#
According to the probability theory to create the origin of life
from ' the soup ' of proteins by the chance is 1 from 10^(-255).
This quantity is so small that it seems this way of creation
is impossible : not by chance the existence began.
==.
Question.
Does DNA have consciousness to create an intellectual child from zygote?
==="

Asking something like "how does DNA know geometry?" is identical to asking how, if you turn one crank, the adjacent crank "knows" to turn as well.

What you are doing is saying that the crank needs a syntax of 1 and 0 where 1 is "crank" and 0 is "no crank." The second crank can only "know" to turn if it receives a "1" and not a "0."

You also are using absurdly bad arguments and sources. For instance, scientists have observed left handed aminos on the Murchison meteorite. Meaning it formed in space without having a body, much less mind.

http://www.sciencemag.org...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

There are already known mechanisms for how you could end up with enantiomeric excess, making your probability claim on left handed components in a protein invalid.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

No modern theory of abiogenesis involves a soup full of amino acids that bounce into each other, which apparently is what you think abiogenesis consists of. Therefore, the probability given is irrelevant.

And, before you continue, how about actually addressing the difference between information as syntax and the physical processes behind it?

For a primer, http://www4.ncsu.edu...
socratus
Posts: 102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 12:33:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
According to Harold Morowitz
http://en.wikipedia.org...

a structure of single cell has 10^12 bit of information
But cells are not in the one and same state, they are different
then another cell has another 10^12 bit of information . . .
==.
The estimate for human cells in the human body is about 10^14.
The number of cells in the body is constantly changing,
as cells die or are destroyed and new ones are formed.
It means that bits information also constantly changing.
Can this unity between information and cells be chaotic ?
No, the process of creation living beings cannot be chaotic
or by chance.This process we are called: "self organizing".
==.
About "self organizing" .

It is amazing to me, that some can use the term "self organizing"
without shame, to describe mindless objects, in arguments that
claim that the universe lacks both mind and self.

There just appears to be these massive blank spots
in the thinking of those who wish to see this universe
as containing nothing but mindless objects, denying the existence
of self, while at the same time describing evolution as self.

It is an inversion of reality, they describe and not reality.
They would contend that the stone blocks of the pyramid,
self organized themselves into a complexity that exceeded
the complexity of the blocks themselves.

I am sorry, reality really does not work upside down
and backwards, even imagining it does, requires self-deception.

/ Comment by Da Blob /
============..
The secret of God and Existence is hidden
in the ' Theory of Vacuum and Light Quanta' .
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2013 3:09:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/24/2013 12:33:09 AM, socratus wrote:
According to Harold Morowitz
http://en.wikipedia.org...

a structure of single cell has 10^12 bit of information
But cells are not in the one and same state, they are different
then another cell has another 10^12 bit of information . . .
==.
The estimate for human cells in the human body is about 10^14.
The number of cells in the body is constantly changing,
as cells die or are destroyed and new ones are formed.
It means that bits information also constantly changing.
Can this unity between information and cells be chaotic ?
No, the process of creation living beings cannot be chaotic
or by chance.This process we are called: "self organizing".
==.
About "self organizing" .

It is amazing to me, that some can use the term "self organizing"
without shame, to describe mindless objects, in arguments that
claim that the universe lacks both mind and self.

There just appears to be these massive blank spots
in the thinking of those who wish to see this universe
as containing nothing but mindless objects, denying the existence
of self, while at the same time describing evolution as self.

It is an inversion of reality, they describe and not reality.
They would contend that the stone blocks of the pyramid,
self organized themselves into a complexity that exceeded
the complexity of the blocks themselves.

I am sorry, reality really does not work upside down
and backwards, even imagining it does, requires self-deception.

/ Comment by Da Blob /
============..

See, this is just one big mess of "I don't understand biochemistry."

If you did, you wouldn't say something as silly as that the phenomena of self-assembly is somehow teleologically driven.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The first cells were not nearly as complex as anything we see today, so applying Morowitzs calculation from the 1960s says nothing.

Go read up on transcription, meiosis, the lot of it, and then come back and we'll talk about whether you need a mind in order for DNA to produce phenotypes.
socratus
Posts: 102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 10:31:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
What are we talking about ?
==
a) We don't know what 'virtual particles' are,
b) we don"t know what electron is,
c) we don't know what water is,
d) we don't know what entropy is,
e) we don"t know what inertia is . . . . .etc
========.
a)
The concept of virtual particles are . . . 'an approximation scheme'
http://en.wikipedia.org...

b)
why electron has six (6) formulas and many theories ?
Nobody knows.

c)
"Water is still not fully understood, although it is the basis
of our existence. I expect more surprises to be discovered
in the future."
/ SLAC scientist Anders Nilsson. /
#
"In my view, the work on water is yet another example of the
actual complexity of matter, this time within a simple liquid.
Modern X-ray work appears to be triggering a new understanding
of liquids and we may have only seen the beginning of a paradigm
shift in our understanding."
/ Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory director Jo St"hr. /

http://phys.org... -- June 30, 2008

d)
Entropy.
1.
Henry Poincare named the conception of "entropy "
as a " surprising abstract ".
2.
Lev Landau (Dau) wrote:
" A question about the physical basis of the
entropy monotonous increasing law remains open ".
3.
Nobel laureate in chemistry 1909 Wilhelm Ostwald
wrote that the entropy is only a shadow of energy.
4.
The mathematician John von Neumann said to
"the father of information theory" Claude Shannon:
" Name it "entropy" then in discussions
you will receive solid advantage, because
nobody knows, what "entropy" basically is ".

e)
Inertia.
Someone wrote:
"An old professor of mine used to say
that anyone who can answer that question
what inertia is , would win a Nobel Prize. "
! !
==========..
What are we talking about ?
We are talking about so called 'philosophy of science'.
===.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus
=========================. .
The secret of God and Existence is hidden
in the ' Theory of Vacuum and Light Quanta' .
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2013 11:05:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 10:31:45 AM, socratus wrote:
What are we talking about ?
==
a) We don't know what 'virtual particles' are,
b) we don"t know what electron is,
c) we don't know what water is,
d) we don't know what entropy is,
e) we don"t know what inertia is . . . . .etc
========.
a)
The concept of virtual particles are . . . 'an approximation scheme'
http://en.wikipedia.org...

b)
why electron has six (6) formulas and many theories ?
Nobody knows.

c)
"Water is still not fully understood, although it is the basis
of our existence. I expect more surprises to be discovered
in the future."
/ SLAC scientist Anders Nilsson. /
#
"In my view, the work on water is yet another example of the
actual complexity of matter, this time within a simple liquid.
Modern X-ray work appears to be triggering a new understanding
of liquids and we may have only seen the beginning of a paradigm
shift in our understanding."
/ Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory director Jo St"hr. /

http://phys.org... -- June 30, 2008

d)
Entropy.
1.
Henry Poincare named the conception of "entropy "
as a " surprising abstract ".
2.
Lev Landau (Dau) wrote:
" A question about the physical basis of the
entropy monotonous increasing law remains open ".
3.
Nobel laureate in chemistry 1909 Wilhelm Ostwald
wrote that the entropy is only a shadow of energy.
4.
The mathematician John von Neumann said to
"the father of information theory" Claude Shannon:
" Name it "entropy" then in discussions
you will receive solid advantage, because
nobody knows, what "entropy" basically is ".

e)
Inertia.
Someone wrote:
"An old professor of mine used to say
that anyone who can answer that question
what inertia is , would win a Nobel Prize. "
! !
==========..
What are we talking about ?
We are talking about so called 'philosophy of science'.
===.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus
=========================. .

What a fascinating coincidence.

Somehow, the answer to my question is WORD-FOR-WORD what you posted online as an OPENING POST for two different sites

http://intpforum.com...

http://www.mail-archive.com... @ googlegroups.com/msg35329.html
socratus
Posts: 102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 12:49:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/24/2013 3:09:52 PM, Wnope wrote:
The first cells were not nearly as complex as anything we see today,
so applying Morowitzs calculation from the 1960s says nothing.
=======.

a simple cell consist of atoms
the first simplest atom consist of proton and electron
what electron is we don't know
therefore what cell is we don't know
The secret of God and Existence is hidden
in the ' Theory of Vacuum and Light Quanta' .
socratus
Posts: 102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 3:03:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/24/2013 3:09:52 PM, Wnope wrote:
The first cells were not nearly as complex as anything we see today,
so applying Morowitzs calculation from the 1960s says nothing.
=======.

The first cells were not nearly as complex as anything we see today,
so applying Morowitz"s calculation from the 1960s today is as actually
and important as in the 1960s.
===.
The secret of God and Existence is hidden
in the ' Theory of Vacuum and Light Quanta' .
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2013 3:08:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/28/2013 12:49:33 AM, socratus wrote:
At 1/24/2013 3:09:52 PM, Wnope wrote:
The first cells were not nearly as complex as anything we see today,
so applying Morowitzs calculation from the 1960s says nothing.
=======.

a simple cell consist of atoms
the first simplest atom consist of proton and electron
what electron is we don't know
therefore what cell is we don't know

If "not knowing an electron" implies "not knowing a cell" then it also implies not knowing a collection of cells i.e. an organism. Why restrict this to organic material? How can we "know" a rock if it is made up of protons and electrons?
socratus
Posts: 102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 1:48:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/28/2013 3:08:08 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/28/2013 12:49:33 AM, socratus wrote:
At 1/24/2013 3:09:52 PM, Wnope wrote:
The first cells were not nearly as complex as anything we see today,
so applying Morowitzs calculation from the 1960s says nothing.
=======.

a simple cell consist of atoms
the first simplest atom consist of proton and electron
what electron is we don't know
therefore what cell is we don't know

If "not knowing an electron" implies "not knowing a cell" then
it also implies not knowing a collection of cells i.e. an organism.

Correct.
We still haven't answer to the question: who am I ?

=
The secret of God and Existence is hidden
in the ' Theory of Vacuum and Light Quanta' .
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 3:02:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 1:48:58 AM, socratus wrote:
At 1/28/2013 3:08:08 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/28/2013 12:49:33 AM, socratus wrote:
At 1/24/2013 3:09:52 PM, Wnope wrote:
The first cells were not nearly as complex as anything we see today,
so applying Morowitzs calculation from the 1960s says nothing.
=======.

a simple cell consist of atoms
the first simplest atom consist of proton and electron
what electron is we don't know
therefore what cell is we don't know

If "not knowing an electron" implies "not knowing a cell" then
it also implies not knowing a collection of cells i.e. an organism.

Correct.
We still haven't answer to the question: who am I ?

=

Is there any a posteriori statement that you would consider "true?" Because from the sound of it, you've walled off all inductive-based knowledge.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 6:11:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The universe is, at it's basic level, randomness. It is only out of what appears in this randomness that we impose structure.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2013 6:49:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 1:48:58 AM, socratus wrote:
At 1/28/2013 3:08:08 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/28/2013 12:49:33 AM, socratus wrote:
At 1/24/2013 3:09:52 PM, Wnope wrote:
The first cells were not nearly as complex as anything we see today,
so applying Morowitzs calculation from the 1960s says nothing.
=======.

a simple cell consist of atoms
the first simplest atom consist of proton and electron
what electron is we don't know
therefore what cell is we don't know

If "not knowing an electron" implies "not knowing a cell" then
it also implies not knowing a collection of cells i.e. an organism.

Correct.
We still haven't answer to the question: who am I ?

=

I know, I know...

socratus.

What do I win?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 7:37:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/29/2013 6:11:49 PM, FREEDO wrote:
The universe is, at it's basic level, randomness. It is only out of what appears in this randomness that we impose structure.

In your opinion that is. and you are welcome to it.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2013 6:14:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/27/2013 11:05:47 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 1/27/2013 10:31:45 AM, socratus wrote:
What are we talking about ?
==
a) We don't know what 'virtual particles' are,
b) we don"t know what electron is,
c) we don't know what water is,
d) we don't know what entropy is,
e) we don"t know what inertia is . . . . .etc

The Fool: You mean you don't know. If you don't know, you sure hell can't know if we know.

========.
a)
The concept of virtual particles are . . . 'an approximation scheme'
http://en.wikipedia.org...

b)
why electron has six (6) formulas and many theories ?
Nobody knows.

c)
"Water is still not fully understood, although it is the basis
of our existence. I expect more surprises to be discovered
in the future."
/ SLAC scientist Anders Nilsson. /
#
"In my view, the work on water is yet another example of the
actual complexity of matter, this time within a simple liquid.
Modern X-ray work appears to be triggering a new understanding
of liquids and we may have only seen the beginning of a paradigm
shift in our understanding."
/ Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory director Jo St"hr. /

http://phys.org... -- June 30, 2008

d)
Entropy.
1.
Henry Poincare named the conception of "entropy "
as a " surprising abstract ".
2.
Lev Landau (Dau) wrote:
" A question about the physical basis of the
entropy monotonous increasing law remains open ".
3.
Nobel laureate in chemistry 1909 Wilhelm Ostwald
wrote that the entropy is only a shadow of energy.
4.
The mathematician John von Neumann said to
"the father of information theory" Claude Shannon:
" Name it "entropy" then in discussions
you will receive solid advantage, because
nobody knows, what "entropy" basically is ".

e)
Inertia.
Someone wrote:
"An old professor of mine used to say
that anyone who can answer that question
what inertia is , would win a Nobel Prize. "
! !
==========..
What are we talking about ?
We are talking about so called 'philosophy of science'.
===.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus
=========================. .

What a fascinating coincidence.

Somehow, the answer to my question is WORD-FOR-WORD what you posted online as an OPENING POST for two different sites

http://intpforum.com...

http://www.mail-archive.com... @ googlegroups.com/msg35329.html

The Fool: It sounds like you are losing, it, You paragraphs are not really connected.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL