Origin of Life

[exchemist]

You and I have had this discussion. You think nature is reducing/reducibility as a perorder based on entropy (2Lot).

I am on the opposite frame, the system (life) is growing, evolving, developing based on the energy upon the mass.


The old schooled see nature as just particles, (mass) equilibrating the energy state to an equilibrium.

I see energy upon mass as light Oscillating in one wavelength or another.

The chemist love their heat and reactions.

I observe a system (life) within nature growing. Once started 'intent' to continue.



Will you bring on the posse to beat into me again?

Oh that. If you are denying the 2nd Law of Thermodynamic then indeed that makes you wrong ***Staff edit***. But that is not to say that order cannot arise: obviously it can and does, so long as entropy increases somewhere else to compensate.

"I see energy upon mass [do you mean E/m?] as light oscillating in one wavelength or another" looks like a misunderstanding of E=mc² nd seems on the face of it fairly meaningless.

But anyway, you have given no example of a process that chemistry represents incorrectly.

 

[Bthoth]

Oh that. If you are denying the 2nd Law of Thermodynamic then indeed that makes you wrong ***Staff edit*** But that is not to say that order cannot arise: obviously it can and does, so long as entropy increases somewhere else to compensate.

"I see energy upon mass [do you mean E/m?] as light oscillating in one wavelength or another" looks like a misunderstanding of E=mc² nd seems on the face of it fairly meaningless.

But anyway, you have given no example of a process that chemistry represents incorrectly.

Same kind of response as before. Must believe as you do. claim insults of my person and then skip the evidence (life) as relevant.

You are expecting me to give you equations or better yet a full paper by another to confirm that 'life abuses entropy'.

 

[exchemist]

Same kind of response as before. Must believe as you do. claim insults of my person and then skip the evidence (life) as relevant.

You are expecting me to give you equations or better yet a full paper by another to confirm that 'life abuses entropy'.

All I want is one concrete example. But you are just offering mumbo jumbo. I just can't respect that, I'm afraid.

 

[Pogo]

Same kind of response as before. Must believe as you do. claim insults of my person and then skip the evidence (life) as relevant.

You are expecting me to give you equations or better yet a full paper by another to confirm that 'life abuses entropy'.

Oh if only there were a source of energy available to the system, then these abuses would not exist.

or something like that in response to this argument I saw 15 or so years ago.

You demonstrate an abuse of entropy and your trip to Stockholm is guaranteed.

 

[Dimi95]

If he's a critical thinker and an empiricist, and it appears that he is, then he needs sufficient evidence to justify belief according to the laws of reason and of evaluating evidence before believing.

But belief is not based on evidence , it is on faith,by definition.

So that requires me to question his understanding of belief.

You can't just use objective aproach on something that in principle does not have such claims and it does not require objective evidence.

This is also similar to tipical Muslim understanding of how the Quran is perserved.
When you stop at Caliph Uthman , you realize that is not evidence based position and it requires faith.

I don't question his objectivity at all.
I am just not so convinced on his understanding of belief.

If he were willing to believe with less, then he would be a faith-based thinker.

I agree

But Faith is belief in the absence
of evidence.

He is requesting something that is absurd when we look at the definition.

If Faith is belief in the absence of evidence , how should i provide it?

We all started out like that, and many people can and do still think that way, but for others, after learning what the power of the one form of thinking is and what the risk of the other is, that has become impossible. Such a person DOES need sufficient evidence to believe.

You mentioned risk.

I can assume that you are an atheist.

So in your view when we die we are just only going to rot in the ground,physically speaking.
In my view , we don't stop there , spiritually speaking.

So who takes the risk when we look at the laws of nature , Me or you?

And do you think that we control our Consciousness?

For me that’s a multi-faceted question with a multi-faceted answer.
The reality that in an either/or situation, it hardly ever is just that. It is more commonly neither or both, and it rarely is neither.There is output information and input information.Our brains function as the bridge between our consciousness and our physicality. This implies that we observe information from our environment and process it into perception, but also that we observe information from our mind or elsewhere in our consciousness and process it into action.Then there is the matter of default systems, which through the amount of time they have been functional bodily systems, that operate on a purely mechanical level, such as our heartbeat or our digestive systems, which is the body controlling itself.

So Consciousness is the end-product of Physical Process Caused by the Organization of Energy in the Brain.

We still don't know enough about Conscousness, but we will - i hope.

I am more interested in studies about the brain , then abiogenesis research.
I follow both, but i am more curious about the brain.

Whatever you are citing as evidence for intelligent design is also evidence for a naturalistically arising universe

So you are saying intelligent design can't work with naturalistically arising universe.Why?
(Correct me if i have misunderstood your answer)

which is a better hypothesis if neither can be ruled in or out, because it's simpler. It only requires that nature and its laws exist.

I don't see how you take the risk that you mentioned previously.

Creationism requires both nature and the supernatural to exist.

It is not complete , but i agree.

 

[Dimi95]

There is no outside interference causing living systems to evolve beyond it's given environment with exception to the entangled states between points in time.

Can you explain why you think this is accurate?

 

[Bthoth]

All I want is one concrete example. But you are just offering mumbo jumbo. I just can't respect that, I'm afraid.

I said life, survives. The living process is light (em) upon mass within a given environment consuming and evolving to survive.

That is what drives the evolution.

As for abiogenesis, I have zero doubt that living systems exist all over the universe. Based on the process of light upon mass and the living system 'intent' to continue..

 

[Bthoth]

Oh if only there were a source of energy available to the system, then these abuses would not exist.
Everything in nature is entangled and associating with it's environment. All cases.

or something like that in response to this argument I saw 15 or so years ago.

What was that? Living systems abuse entropy?

You demonstrate an abuse of entropy and your trip to Stockholm is guaranteed.

Great.
Putting on a coat to stay warm is an abuse of entropy.

 

[Bthoth]

Can you explain why you think this is accurate?

Causality to physical association.

i understand entangements. (shared energy between points in time/sppace)

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

But belief is not based on evidence , it is on faith,by definition.

Disagree as written. Perhaps you intended to begin with the word if rather than but. I would agree with that.

Faith is belief in the absence of evidence.

That's a better definition of faith.

If Faith is belief in the absence of evidence, how should i provide it?

I don't understand what you're asking. Provide to whom? To yourself to justify your belief?

in your view when we die we are just only going to rot in the ground, physically speaking.

I expect consciousness to end with death.

Consciousness is the end-product of Physical Process Caused by the Organization of Energy in the Brain.

Consciousness appears to be an epiphenomenon of the brain.

you are saying intelligent design can't work with naturalistically arising universe. Why?

By naturalistic, I mean absent a supernatural intelligent designer and creator.

I don't see how you take the risk that you mentioned previously.

The risk with belief by faith is acquiring a false belief that will harm one if he acts on it.

 

[Audie]

Same kind of response as before. Must believe as you do. claim insults of my person and then skip the evidence (life) as relevant.

You are expecting me to give you equations or better yet a full paper by another to confirm that 'life abuses entropy'.

Its called put up or shut up.

 

[Bthoth]

Its called put up or shut up.

I can't make a person see nature or make the obsolete start over.

But like religious opinions, many varieties of what is true and non can be made to introduce their god to the rest.

Science is about describing what is observed not sustain compliance to the old schooled. As that is about as nutty as suggesting each claim must conform to bible or not true.

Life, survives by it's own 'intent' even if not thinking about it. That perspective and 'word' drives the old timers absolutely crazy. But they will use 2Lot as if a commandment by god yet no causality. The old scope is an intent to equilibrium. I see the energy rolling over a lake as entangling more mass and why the focal wave is appearing to dissipate. Yet that energy is still there.

The folk to shut up, must relearn with an objective approach versus expecting to be taught or told how it works.

 

[Pogo]

What was that? Living systems abuse entropy?

Great.
Putting on a coat to stay warm is an abuse of entropy.

If this is your understanding of entropy, you are wrong and it is no wonder nobody can make sense of your argument no matter how many sciency words you use.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I can't make a person see nature

Did you mean that you can't get people to agree with you, to see nature as you do (I'm assuming here that what you mean by "living systems abuse entropy" is that the existence of life falsifies the second law of thermodynamics)? If you were correct, you should have been able to do that with the critical thinkers - people capable of understanding your evidenced argument and willing to change their minds if it is a sound one. But you don't have that, whereas those disagreeing with you here have evidenced arguments that you are incorrect. You won't be able to make any of those people see nature as you do under such circumstances.

 

[Dimi95]

I don't understand what you're asking. Provide to whom? To yourself to justify your belief?

Again , what i belive is justified with faith.

I expect consciousness to end with death.

I expect the oposite.

Neverthless , it is unkown , so it is not testable.

Consciousness appears to be an epiphenomenon of the brain.

https://www.science.org/content/article/burst-brain-activity-during-dying-could-explain-life-passing-your-eyes

By naturalistic, I mean absent a supernatural intelligent designer and creator.

Does that mean they are neccessary oposites?
One must be separated from the other?

 

[Audie]

I can't make a person see nature or make the obsolete start over.

But like religious opinions, many varieties of what is true and non can be made to introduce their god to the rest.

Science is about describing what is observed not sustain compliance to the old schooled. As that is about as nutty as suggesting each claim must conform to bible or not true.

Life, survives by it's own 'intent' even if not thinking about it. That perspective and 'word' drives the old timers absolutely crazy. But they will use 2Lot as if a commandment by god yet no causality. The old scope is an intent to equilibrium. I see the energy rolling over a lake as entangling more mass and why the focal wave is appearing to dissipate. Yet that energy is still there.

The folk to shut up, must relearn with an objective approach versus expecting to be taught or told how it works.

So no "put up".

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

what I believe is justified with faith.

OK, but that doesn't justify belief as I use the word justify. I'm referring to the academic usage, which means supported by evidence understood according to the rules of inference accepted by empiricists in law, medicine, and academia.

Using faith, one can believe anything. Remember most ideas are wrong, just like most answers to an addition problem are wrong if several are given. Only the laws of addition properly applied to addends results in generating correct sums.

That is also true for just about every idea one can say is possible. Most are incorrect, and only empiricism can determine which are correct. By faith, one can believe that the day he dies will be any day in the foreseeable future assuming that death isn't imminent. Guessing isn't a path to truth or knowledge if not followed by empiric justification, at which time, a belief ceases being believed by faith.

And how do we learn which day that is? Not by faith, so if one believes that he will drop dead naturally on any given date, he is probably wrong. THAT's why I say that faith isn't a path to truth about reality. Just empiricism is.

https://www.science.org/content/article/burst-brain-activity-during-dying-could-explain-life-passing-your-eyes

OK. Why did you want to share that here? Do you think that the identification of gamma wave bursts in dying brains supports consciousness surviving death? If so, I'll need you to make your evidenced argument.

Does that mean they are necessary opposites? One must be separated from the other?

A universe designed and created by an agency that is not part of nature is a different idea from positing that no such entity was involved.

The idea of supernaturalism is problematic. To posit that something that exists that isn't another part of nature is problematic. And to say that that existence is outside of space and time and undetectable to us is incoherent, as that is the description of the nonexistent. That's the description of Batman. The idea of Batman exists in nature, but not the superhero himself, who, at no time and in no place can modify reality, which is what being detectable means.

 

[Bthoth]

If this is your understanding of entropy, you are wrong and it is no wonder nobody can make sense of your argument no matter how many sciency words you use.

No that is not my understanding of entropy. It is me making fun of the complacent.

 

[Bthoth]

Did you mean that you can't get people to agree with you, to see nature as you do (I'm assuming here that what you mean by "living systems abuse entropy" is that the existence of life falsifies the second law of thermodynamics)?

NO. Living systems exist, 2LoT is a man made description of closed systems.

No such thing as a closed system in nature, just omissions of the natural.

If you were correct, you should have been able to do that with the critical thinkers - people capable of understanding your evidenced argument and willing to change their minds if it is a sound one.

OKey dokey.

But you don't have that, whereas those disagreeing with you here have evidenced arguments that you are incorrect. You won't be able to make any of those people see nature as you do under such circumstances.

I have been dealing with the obtuse, since a teenager.

 

[Bthoth]

So no "put up".

Like wise, about that shut up?