gevo27 Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 Quantum mechanics.. hmmm... LOL.. Its still basically a theory.. Bohrs did good work with it, but he has ways to go (if he were alive) to establish a better firmer foundation... Quatum Mechanics makes this stipulation... Time, according to relativity, is not absolute ... whats does that exactly mean ??? they done a crappy job at explaining this... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 Luck and chance are abstract concepts ... Take 2 dice. Roll them 1000 times and keep track of how many times you get each possible sum 2 ... 12. After you realize 7 came up more than anything else, then try to rethink whether that abstract concept of "chance" has any foundation in real life. Once that is done, then we can move on to Shroedinger's equations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angel4hope Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 eeeeeeeeeeeh PHYSICS? i wish i had someone to help e understand physics better....it frustrates me soo much....!!! especially quantum machanics..man o man o man...my new goal....master physics...!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 Hmmm... will try to prepare something for tommorow... what do you think TB, can you make me a credit for a week, as to read something over two screen wide? Angel, I will be PMing you as soon as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 By the way, I was reminded of this quote by Winston Churchill: "The potential for loss when gambling on a certainty is infinite." I think that really does a great job in separating the mathematician/theoretician from the really smart ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 Take 2 dice. Roll them 1000 times and keep track of how many times you get each possible sum 2 ... 12. After you realize 7 came up more than anything else, then try to rethink whether that abstract concept of "chance" has any foundation in real life. Once that is done, then we can move on to Shroedinger's equations. Sip, ok your right, i didnt make my self clear enouhg... sry.. here is the foundation of my claim... Chance as in 1 outt of a 100... ok.. i get it... now it is "possible" for you to role the dice 100 times and get 100 times back a 7.. no? is it not possible? sure it is... Well, its also "possible" to role all 2's right? or all 1's etc.... u see where im going with this...?? Now.. think of the outcome as only being 1 possible out of the universe... thats quite large no? well lets narrow it down, you only have 1 outcome out of the possibilities present here on earht..? still vast.. your outcome can be anything.... literally anything. a car, a house. a grain of salt, one particular atomic structure.. get this line of arguemtn, its hard to put in words.. but just go alond for a little longer lol.. Now.. all that taken into consideration, i give you 1 dice, with 2 faces, 2 possibilites.. and ask you to role it for 1000 days... and is it possible that everytime you will get the same face everytime, never the other one?? Yes it is.. and this makes it VERY! abstarct... because any one of those roles during the 1000 days could (keywords : could, possible, maybe) be the other face.. but was it, can you say with any certainty that i will atleast get 1 of the other face if i role for 1000 days, or 100 years.... u see.. it is quite abstract, even in a situation where the chances to win are 1 out of 2.. I wrote a LOOONG paper on this.. LOOOOOONG>>> LOL.. but i have it in my laptop, when i get it out.. ill shorten it and post.. maybe.. LOL.. there is a chane of that, HAH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 Quantum mechanics.. hmmm... LOL.. Its still basically a theory.. Bohrs did good work with it, but he has ways to go (if he were alive) to establish a better firmer foundation... Quatum Mechanics makes this stipulation... Time, according to relativity, is not absolute ... whats does that exactly mean ??? they done a crappy job at explaining this... Dude, believe me, if you knew what Quantum mechanic is about, and the accuracy of the predictions, you would refrain making such comments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 Are we still talking about evolution or not? Domino, it would be nice to know about those other universes but first let's figure out the evolution on this planet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 Well ... I think it is very related... it basically undermines the entire "improbability" of evolution argument. In other words, if evolution is soooo improbable, even if there is a minute chance it could happen, then the existance of infinite universes (or multiverse as TB puts it) would explain why there is such a universe wherein evolution did take place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 Sip the mutiverse would conviniently come to rescue any crazy and unprobable theories But I think first we need a proof that such a multiverse exists. Darwinism is a much more plausible theory than the mutiverse even though I don't think it is correct. At any rate, even if we assume that we are in fact in one of the possible universes in the multiverse, we still need to understand how the evolution actually works. I don't see that happening talking about multiple universes I think it is absolutely required that the laws of our universe work in the same manner as they would work in a single universe reality. As far as the multiverse, the more I think about it the more I become convinced that it doesn't really matter. The other universes apparently have no connection to our universe, so they could as well not exist and we would be the same (assuming they exist). I wonder if I managed to convey my feeling about this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 Dude, believe me, if you knew what Quantum mechanic is about, and the accuracy of the predictions, you would refrain making such comments. Domino jan, really as i said i dont know much quantum mechanics, but i pointed out a simple flw that i see in it.. trust me i am far from understanding it, but a fundamental stipulation sems flawed allready Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 8, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 Unless something is provable and testable, there is no need to revere it like religion. Otherwise don't call science 'science', call it faith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 10, 2004 Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 (edited) OK ! Here a start of an answer. I think the problem here is that some fail to understand how important the role of the selectivity effect is. In my first post I tried to touch this issue, but from the replies I have received, it is apparent that the essence of my post was not fully understood. We can not just take a look at the way the universe is ordered and then claim that from what we observe natural selection has its flaws. Sasun, in order to fully understand what it is brought here the multiple universe theory must be discussed because it is the central point, the missing puzzle. And as well, natural selection does not only favour more complex species, to the contrary, most of the species in this planet, you will find them in micro levels. And yes! Mammals are fragile, but I fail to see your point here, why should they not be on top of the evolution tree? Another point, is your question regarding the first life, this happened gradually, in the laboratory called Earth… new molecules were formed, more complex structures etc… and finally a cell which could replicate itself, there was as well organic molecules coming from space which germinated Earth. Now, you point 3) It happens, if it is favoured in that environment, it will allow changes in any directions. 4) Is irrelevant to the discussion right now, I think this should alone have its own thread because of the complexity behind it. As for your last question. Why should the Universe be not flat? You assume that everything must have reasons, this is not the cases. Now, before continuing, I have seen Sip participating on this thread, which made me jump of happiness. And more to this, he came with an interesting comment which I loved. “4) maybe the universe is evolving and natural selection has led to it's physical constants to have the current "good" values?” This is equivalent as saying that there is multiple universes in my opinion. For the universe to evolve and change its constants, there must be traces left of such a change, unless there is a big-bang each time which will wash every traces of such a change… if that is so, than we can say that the universe will constantly change into being another universe and another and another etc… if that is not the cases, TB option is left, in both cases, Sip, you are forced to come to the starting point, and that is multiple-universe. It is the only thing that makes sense to me, when we go in the microworld, this is the pattern we detect with Quantum mechanic… Now, to you Gevo. Before criticising Quantum mechanic, which is one of the most precise(if not the most) tool we have to study the micro-world understand it. Quantum mechanic can not have the flaws you claim, because Quantum mechanic is not meant to explain the way of things, the how of things… it is a tool which predict, and calculate, you can not criticise it because it does not answer what it is not supposed to answer. What you can do with it, is to try to understand the implication of such a theory(it is more than just a theory) and came up with interesting constations. I don’t know if you are at college, or you have studied it a little bit, but if you are just at the basic part, like the electrons 4 states and orbitals and calculating the probability of the presences, you are in no position to tell us about such flaws, physicists will reject all other theories before rejecting Quantum mechanic, so I think it is more than just a “flawed” notion. Don’t you think so? Appears to me that I have to do a little more brain storming before answering to this thread, there is many elements which I want to discuss so I have to meditate a little bit and right now I don’t have the brain power to do that(brain need a little more energy, I have to plug it on the charger). Edited February 10, 2004 by Fadix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Posted February 10, 2004 Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 (edited) OK ! Here a start of an answer. hahahahaah Domino jan, this line just blew me away as soon as I'm thru I'll read the rest of it oh by the way nice to see you around pal Edited February 10, 2004 by Edward Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 10, 2004 Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 hahahahaah Domino jan, this line just blew me away as soon as I'm thru I'll read the rest of it oh by the way nice to see you around pal But it really was a starting post, there was no real content in it. I will try to come up with a worthy post as soon as my brain has enough charge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 10, 2004 Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 Domino, I fail to see how multiple universe theory is relevant to discuss with the evolution theory. I am not talking about possible evolution of universes. Darwinism is about the planet Earth, correct? So why are we talking about multiple universes? I can understand the attractiveness of multiple universes, however I don't see how that should matter for processes on earth. But suppose it does, then evolution theory is not the only thing affected by it. In that case every big or small processes on earth must be considered having the Multi-univ. theory in mind. Or am I misunderstanding something? For once, I would like to know what the hell this theory has to do with evolution and lets not get too hypothetical. And yes! Mammals are fragile, but I fail to see your point here, why should they not be on top of the evolution tree? Very simple Domino, because they are not fit and by far not the fittest. Another point, is your question regarding the first life, this happened gradually, in the laboratory called Earth… new molecules were formed, more complex structures etc… and finally a cell which could replicate itself, there was as well organic molecules coming from space which germinated Earth. Well, the reason I asked this question is because life forms replicate and carry forward the existing 'program' already and the rest is done by evolution on selected individuals of the population. Unlike life forms, molecular structures don't replicate, there is no population. So suppose a single molecular structure was accidentally formed that was pretty close to be called a life form but not there yet. That would be the end of it since it is not a life form to replicate many many similar copies in order to form a statistically significant pool that would allow an evolutionary change. In other words, there is no chance of a gradual change and a jump is necessary for a non-life structure to become a life-form. By the way, has there ever been any artificially created cell? I never heard of it. I am not talking about cloning and stuff like that. I mean, a fully functional biological cell (let it be one of the simplest) created in a lab from scratch mimicking a possible natural process described by Domino. Now, you point 3) It happens, if it is favoured in that environment, it will allow changes in any directions. The upwards direction is more favored it seems. In other words, it looks like a stochastic process with an upwards trend. I wonder why? 4) Is irrelevant to the discussion right now, I think this should alone have its own thread because of the complexity behind it. I don't mind a separate discussion but since humans are part of the evolution then I don't understand why the emergence of intellect in our species is irrelevant. As for your last question. Why should the Universe be not flat? You assume that everything must have reasons, this is not the cases. I am surprised you think that way. Domino, this is physics we are talking about, things have a reason. If the universe originated from nothingness, then there was a dot right? Then this dot expanded and became a universe. Now, the question is why one dimension is less favoured than 2 other dimensions? I am quite convinced that there is a reason Domino. The planets, stars are more or less spheric and we are not surprised since all dimension are equal. But why is the unviverse on the whole flat? Don't you ever wonder? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted February 10, 2004 Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 (edited) Domino, I fail to see how multiple universe theory is relevant to discuss with the evolution theory This is Fadiverse your talking about remember....LOL He is attempting to negate the argument of probability against life....I don't think that it is needed because one cannot make the argument as we have not all the facts (of neither the proces nor the absolute size of the "pool" of molecular resources to discount the probability)...but of course - practically no matter the (scientific or religious) argument Domino will pop back to multiple universes...so amuse him I guess... Very simple Domino, because they are not fit and by far not the fittest Well in general this is clearly not true...its all about adaptability - and circumstance...what creatures with what attributes can make it under the 9sometimes variable) circumstances...and is this creature (or creatures) necessarilyt the "fittest' - well perhaps by definition...but nothing to say that other options may not have done the trick as well or better - or might in the future etc... Oh & BTW - I have had my own variant on Darwin - I say its survival of the fatest - not the fittest...again with the idea that its the ability to make it through bad times...in addition to being able to maximally exploit the resources at hand.. By the way, has there ever been any artificially created cell? I never heard of it. I am not talking about cloning and stuff like that. I mean, a fully functional biological cell (let it be one of the simplest) created in a lab from scratch mimicking a possible natural process described by Domino. To my knowledge - no.. On a side note we seem to be completely discounting the role that viruses and bacteria play in our own (more complex cellular creatures) evolution (just as they seem to be causation for some current medical conditions far after the fact). These little creatures seem to have had a significant role in our own evolution and their gentics are intwined with ours....and again so much is yet unknown concerning the funtioning of great aspects of our DNA... Edited February 10, 2004 by THOTH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted February 10, 2004 Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 (edited) Sasun and others interested - I most highly recommend reading this: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/2948/gould.html And Sasun - near the end is a bit about Mamals that you will find interesting...other stuff is all good too... Edited February 10, 2004 by THOTH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted February 11, 2004 Report Share Posted February 11, 2004 Sasun and others interested - I most highly recommend reading this: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/2948/gould.html And Sasun - near the end is a bit about Mamals that you will find interesting...other stuff is all good too... THOT matters of this subject reffered to internet sites which have .com, or are a free hosting site such as geocities and homestead are in no way relevant material, and can not be read for or as truth.. and should not be considered a good argument.. when i see an address that doesnt look valid, or trustworthy, i dont even waist my time.. so if your gonna find information that you beleive is trustworthy, then please make sure its not on a second hand site, nor a .com.. then i will read the dtuff u suggest... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted February 11, 2004 Report Share Posted February 11, 2004 Your loss gevo....of course your mind is made up anyway...i mean who needs scince... Anyway the link is to a very facinating presentation by Steven Jay Gould - a very well known inovator in eveolutionary theory....it is a very serious post/link and not just internet opinion/garbage...oh well stay ignorant for all I care... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted February 11, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2004 (edited) Your loss gevo....of course your mind is made up anyway...i mean who needs scince... Anyway the link is to a very facinating presentation by Steven Jay Gould - a very well known inovator in eveolutionary theory....it is a very serious post/link and not just internet opinion/garbage...oh well stay ignorant for all I care... That's a silly assertion. Everyones mind is essentially 'made up'. If you pay attention very few of us are interested or engage in Socratic dialogue or genuine questioning per the tradition of Socrates. I think we should be careful of accusing others when we ourselves ( and I'm included ) engage in the same thing. Edited February 11, 2004 by Anonymouse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted February 11, 2004 Report Share Posted February 11, 2004 Your loss gevo....of course your mind is made up anyway...i mean who needs scince... Anyway the link is to a very facinating presentation by Steven Jay Gould - a very well known inovator in eveolutionary theory....it is a very serious post/link and not just internet opinion/garbage...oh well stay ignorant for all I care... Comment on your own problems, assuming someone else is ignorant and then stating it, thats ignorence right there.. And i dont care, if the guys is soo respected he can aford 4 bux amonth and have a suitable website for his work.. r the .coms where you get all your info!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted February 11, 2004 Report Share Posted February 11, 2004 And i dont care, if the guys is soo respected he can aford 4 bux amonth and have a suitable website for his work.. r the .coms where you get all your info!? well he's been dead for several years now... Oh and here is this better? http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted February 11, 2004 Report Share Posted February 11, 2004 well he's been dead for several years now... Oh and here is this better? http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ Yes actually i read some of that, and will read some more when i get home, these site i can trust some. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted February 11, 2004 Report Share Posted February 11, 2004 Well it is "unofficial" you realize...so are you sure? LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.