Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Roger Granet wrote on Aug. 1, 2018 @ 03:40 GMT
While I wish them luck in their research, it always amazes me how physicists seem like they're totally qualified to contribute to basic ideas in biology like consciousness, evolution, etc., but when biologists, or others, try to contribute to basic areas in physics, or at least the philosophy of physics, they call us crackpots and deride us. This is even more ironic when many physicists and mathematicians hold faith-based, evidence-free ideas like that mathematical constructs and physical laws actually exist in a Platonic realm that nobody can see, touch, measure or experiment on. While this rant is partly sour grapes on my part, I think these grapes have a basis in reality.
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Aug. 1, 2018 @ 15:15 GMT
Reality am not theoretical. The real visible earth had a real visible surface for millions of years before Sara Imari Walker ever appeared on that real visible surface and began publishing her senseless guesswork about mythological “sophisticated” observers being able to cope with speculative aspects of abstract physical laws.
Obviously, Nature must have produced the only real visible physical construct of the real Universe allowable. There has only ever been one visible unified infinite surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. This real natural visible construct satisfies the needs of all observers, real and imagined, sophisticated or uncultured.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Robert H McEachern wrote on Aug. 2, 2018 @ 17:17 GMT
Roger:
I agree. It has yet to dawn on the physics community, that reality (the things that actual occur) is much more a result of initial conditions, rather than the laws of physics. The extremely limited information content of the laws, ensures that they can only ever describe what is impossible. But what is possible and thus observable, is dictated, almost entirely, by the enormous information content of the initial conditions.
Rob McEachern
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher replied on Aug. 3, 2018 @ 15:12 GMT
Dear Robert H McEachern,
Had you bothered to read my posts, you would not have admitted that you do not want to know the truth about natural visible reality. There am no such a thing as a “physics community.”
Irrefutable fact: The earth had a real visible surface for millions of years before any physicist ever published his or her senseless guesswork about finite invisible atoms, or the supposed finite duration of space/time.
Only Nature could have devised the only real visible physical construction allowable. There has only ever been one visible unified infinite surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Roger Granet wrote on Aug. 3, 2018 @ 05:14 GMT
Rob,
Thanks! And figuring out how those initial conditions came to be and what they are is a question everyone has an equal chance at answering. Academics are more about describing systems like the universe as they already are and not about how those systems came into being in the first place, so they have no advantage on the second topic. What irritates me is when they pontificate about this second topic (e.g., Why is there something rather than nothing?) and other topics outside their area while at the same time deriding amateurs for their ideas on these same topics.
Also, physical laws describe physical things, interactions and changes in the universe. They're not fundamental like the initial conditions and what brought those initial conditions into being. As you say, the initial conditions and how those initial conditions came into being dictate the game.
But, given that, I agree with them that anyone's ideas on these topics should match reality, be testable and be able to make testable predictions.
Roger
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher replied on Aug. 3, 2018 @ 15:21 GMT
Dear Roger Granet,
Natural visible reality am eternal. You cannot handle the truth.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 4, 2018 @ 01:25 GMT
Nature and nurture, an idea from biology, might be applied to physics. Eg. The nature of a particle being what it is, and its behaviour due to its 'initial condition, i.e. its behavior when emitted from a substance or device, is affected by the environmental exposure it incurs, between emission and result. Such as an electron passing through the magnetic field of a Stern Gerlach apparatus. The outcome spin up or spin down state is a product of the interaction of particle and field not merely the behaviour and nature of the particle unchallenged.
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher replied on Aug. 4, 2018 @ 14:31 GMT
Dear Georgina Woodward,
Invisible finite particles cannot have a finite nature. Nature designed a single VISIBLE unified infinite surface that would eternally occur in one infinite dimension always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny wrote on Aug. 3, 2018 @ 08:42 GMT
Hi all,
Contructing a theory of life, a toe at my humble opinion must consider the spherical volumes and sphères and their motions and oscillations.We can unify G c h with objectivity. The main aim being to explain also this quantum weakest force the quantum gravitation. Several works are relevant about the geometrical algebras (Clifford, Lie,...) these works with quanternions, octonions are relevant considering the quasicrystals and the corrélations ith our space time .These works consider an external cause , primordial for the shapes, geometries, topologies like the strings and a 1D primordial field.My model of spherisation with quantum and cosmological sphères Inside an universal sphere in optimisation consider an intrinsic cause in the finite primordial series implying also shpapes, geometries, topologies.The relevance is that this can converge and we can reach this quantum gravitation.It does not seem to be an emergent electromagnetic force but needs an other logic non baryonic.The problem also about our consciousness can be analysed also considering the finite primordial series.The body mind soul problem can be also solved in this road considering the singularities and main primordial codes.
Spherically yours dear thinkers.
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 3, 2018 @ 08:52 GMT
The real big question is about what are this aether, this vaccuum.Must we consider that aether is luminiferous ? I Don't think , I beleive that this aether is gravitational , it is intuitive of course but we need to superimpose new parameters non baryonic to this standard model.I am doubting that this infinite Eternal consciousness has created only photons like primordial essence of all things. This DM is intriguing also if it exists and that we are not obliged to modify our newtonian mechanics.
If the quantum gravitation is emergent due to our coupling and gauges of our standard model, so I will accept, but that seems odd and imply that we need to insert this matter non baryonic, in the cold probably, lambda of our cosmological model seems relevant, thjis zero absolute intrigues me a lot. Our scales quant and cosm need this matter to balance many things, to solve several problems that we have
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher replied on Aug. 3, 2018 @ 15:29 GMT
Dear Steve,
Do you have a visible surface? Does the room you are in have a visible surface? Does the earth have a visible surface? There has only ever been one unified visible infinite surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher. Realist
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Sep. 1, 2018 @ 09:04 GMT
How to prove my equation E=m(b)c²+m(nb)l² ,this matter non baryonic intrigues a lot.If this matter exists, like the photons they are encoded in nuclei and can give us even a road for this quantum gravitation.A cold dark matter seems important and we can encircle this standard model.If my equation is correct, it is intuitive and general considering the matter and Energy.It will be a big rvolution for our sciences and technologies if we check this quantum gravitation and this matter non baryonic non relativistic .
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford wrote on Aug. 3, 2018 @ 22:56 GMT
Luboš Motl was right to use sarcasm:
“Some of the most experienced readers already know that
a kettle may heat water. Fortunately, the authors allow us to formulate even such statements in a more "natural" and more "profound" way:
For instance, a kettle with a power supply can serve as a constructor that can perform the task of heating water. LOL, it's a constructor. Who would have thought? One would think that a kettle isn't constructing anything…”
“Constructor theory: Deutsch and Marletto are just vacuously bullsiting”, Luboš Motl, 27 May 2014, https://motls.blogspot.com/2014/05/constructor-theory-deutsc
h-and-marletto.html
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 4, 2018 @ 01:10 GMT
I don't see any harm in clearly differentiating objects that have a more profound effect on a system than more passive background objects. The outcome with the kettle working is going to be very different from the kettle switched off.
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on Aug. 4, 2018 @ 14:50 GMT
Dear Lorraine Ford,
Nature must have designed the only visible construct of the real Universe allowable. There has only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. Any humanly devised senseless guesswork about supposedly finite physical construction am totally unnatural.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher replied on Aug. 4, 2018 @ 14:55 GMT
Dear Georgina Woodward,
No visible “objects” can be differentiated. All VISIBLE objects have a VISIBLE surface. The only natural way that could be would be if there was only one unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 4, 2018 @ 22:12 GMT
Joe, of course visible objects can be differentiated, otherwise we would be functionally blind.
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on Aug. 6, 2018 @ 14:56 GMT
Georgina Woodward,
Surface cannot be differentiated because there has only ever been one unified INFINITE surface ETERNALLY occurring in one INFINITE dimension that am mostly always illuminated by FINITE non-surface light. You mistakenly believe that you can see a finite object that am different from another finite object. It is physically impossible to do this. All solids, liquids and vapors have a visible surface. Although scientist claim that they can measure finite amounts of solid matter by shaping it into a finite configuration in a finite amount of time, Nature devised one VISIBLE INFINITE SURFACE TO PERSIST FOREVER.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Anonymous wrote on Aug. 4, 2018 @ 12:06 GMT
"You're a long way from the pituitary..."
report post as inappropriate
Uncle Al wrote on Aug. 4, 2018 @ 16:03 GMT
Dissect a human brain. seeking q source or mechanism of thought. It never appears. Reductionism fails for emergent phenomena. Unlike intrinsic properties (e.g, the optical spectrum of water), extrinsic properties (chirality) are not "in" there" below a characteristic emergence scale. Self-awareness is not even localized.
Turbulence, spin glasses. Good luck with synthetic local deterministic processes efficiently predicting real world global emergence.
The problem is not explaining why some people are crazy. The problem is explaining why most people are not crazy, since no two brains are small scale identical (even for identical twins).
report post as inappropriate
jim hughes replied on Aug. 4, 2018 @ 16:51 GMT
@Uncle Al, I don't even think there are any "emergent phenomena". We see something at one scale that we didn't, or couldn't, at another scale - but nothing actually emerged except a concept. "Emergence" is just a fashionable sort of hand-waving.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 4, 2018 @ 22:21 GMT
Jim,
Yes we see things at larger scales that couldn't exist at the smaller scale , able to do things that couldn't happen at just the smaller scale. Like the forming of a bird's egg. It is a concept, it is fashionable. Sometimes hand waving aids comprehension.
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher replied on Aug. 5, 2018 @ 14:39 GMT
Uncle Al,
Every brain has a visible surface. Every part of anyone’s anatomy also has a visible surface. The only logical reason for this would be if only one unified visible surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light has ever existed.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on Aug. 5, 2018 @ 14:48 GMT
Georgina Woodward,
It is physical impossible to see “things.” Every real thing has a real visible surface.Only visible surface can be seen. This is because only one unified visible infinite surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light has ever existed.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 5, 2018 @ 20:02 GMT
Joe, what do
you mean by a 'real thing', when you also say only one unified, infinite surface has ever existed?
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Lorraine Ford wrote on Aug. 4, 2018 @ 22:27 GMT
I have re-posted this from the "Agency in the Physical World – FQXi’s Next Research Program" Blog, because it is also relevant to the "Constructing a Theory of Life" Forum:
What is information:Information = knowledge = subjective experience of one or more relationships between categories, whereby every “higher” category is ultimately related to the most fundamental-level categories like energy and momentum. Every information category, even the most fundamental ones, can be defined as a relationship between other categories. So that information/knowledge is always contextual (i.e. related and categorised): information does not objectively exist without context (i.e. i.e. without relationship and categorisation), as if it were a binary digit in a vacuum.
How do we represent information:The physical universe exists because of information relationships. But the relationships are not to be equated to the mathematical symbols we human beings use to represent them. We represent relationships symbolically as: (law of nature) equations, algorithms (these mainly exist in living things), and initial-value number assignments (where every measured number can ultimately be traced to simpler relationships between categories in which the “numerator” and “denominator” categories cancel out, leaving a number, which is a thing without a category).
What knows information and what creates information:The universe itself creates and knows all the types of relationships (represented by human beings as equations, algorithms, numbers). More precisely,
parts of the universe create and know relationships: i.e. agent-observers create and know relationships, where agent-observers are “information-integrated”: particles, atoms, molecules, and living things. This “creation” and “knowledge” are otherwise known as “free will” and “consciousness”.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 4, 2018 @ 23:15 GMT
I think you should have made clear that you are quoting yourself; re-posting what
you have written on the other page.
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher replied on Aug. 6, 2018 @ 15:07 GMT
Georgina Woodward.
I use the word "surface" because only one unified VISIBLE infinite surface has ever existed. You use the finite word "thing" because you refuse to believe that every real thing has the same surface.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 8, 2018 @ 00:39 GMT
What is Joe Fisher? Why do you persist in differentiating it as if it is a separate thing?
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford wrote on Aug. 6, 2018 @ 00:54 GMT
As expected, David Deutsch and Chiara Marletto fail to clearly distinguish
information from the
symbolic representation of information [1].
For example, they say: “
Information can … be moved from one type of medium to another…” But they should have said: “
Symbolic representations of information can … be moved from one type of medium to another…”.
So it is not surprising that they are never able to say what
information itself is. Instead they 1) try to describe the “character” and “properties” of this thing they can’t define (i.e. information); and 2) make assumptions about this thing they can’t define (i.e. information):
“we are concerned with the nature and properties of information”; “information has a counter-factual character”; “information is a qualitatively different sort of entity”; “information does resemble some entities”; “information is not abstract”; “the intuitive concept of information is associated with that of copying”; “This will allow us to express information in terms of computation”; “our search for a deeper theory of information”; “An information variable is a clonable computation variable”; “we assume that unlimited resources are available for conversion into information storage devices”; “we assume that unlimited resources are available for information processing too.”
1.
Constructor Theory of Information, David Deutsch, Chiara Marletto, https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.5563v2
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher replied on Aug. 6, 2018 @ 15:11 GMT
Lorraine Ford.
Why do you find truth objectionable? The earth had a visible surface for millions of years before any humanly contrived senseless supposedly finite information was ever published. You have a complete visible surface. At this moment, part of your visible surface could be resting on the visible surface of the seat of a chair. The only real way this could happen would be if only one unified visible infinite surface occurring eternally in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light has ever existed.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
jim hughes replied on Aug. 13, 2018 @ 01:36 GMT
As with some other words - like 'physical', and 'consciousness' - one way to deal with the inability to even describe or define what they really mean is to just ignore that fact, roll ahead, and construct elaborate theories about empty concepts.
report post as inappropriate
Stewart Cowan wrote on Aug. 6, 2018 @ 06:22 GMT
Many atheists, including the high priest of materialism, R. Dawkins, deny the reality of free will.
"If free will could be shown to be an integral part of how nature works, rather than a social invention, that would definitely be a boost for human dignity."
The author is perhaps making the same error as Dawkins, etc. in thinking that a scientific explanation is an anti-religious argument.
If free will could be shown to be an integral part of how nature works it means that a) the atheistic evolutionists are wrong about the nature of free will (as they are on many other matters) and b) you can argue, scientifically, that God made free will an essential part of His creation, otherwise how can we be judged if we have no free will?
Atheists might not thank you if your research reinforces holy scripture!
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher replied on Aug. 6, 2018 @ 15:26 GMT
Stewart Cowan,
The earth had a visible surface for millions of years BEFORE any religious or atheist folk ever appeared on that surface and began publishing their senseless guesswork about an unnatural invisible God or unnatural human determination.
It logically follows that Nature could have devised the only visible construct of the Universe allowable. Reality consists of one unified visible infinite surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford wrote on Aug. 6, 2018 @ 23:27 GMT
The universe is ordered. All higher phenomena, like planets and living things, are based on underlying laws of nature and quantum events.
These laws of nature and quantum events are representable, by us humans, as equations, algorithms and numbers:
1. Laws of nature are representable as mathematical equations, i.e. relationships between categories, and incorporate an algorithmic step which derives a “time”/ “number-change” category.
2. Quantum events are representable as the creation of a new algorithmic step which specifies a new mathematical equation, e.g. a new number assignment equation.
The point that I’m getting to is this: physics assumes that the universe knows these equations, algorithms and numbers. But physics is either too cowardly to admit to these assumptions, or too stupid to notice that it has made these assumptions in the first place.
I repeat: Physics assumes that a knowledge aspect exists in the universe right from the start.
An environment in which physics fails to notice their assumptions, leads to nonsensical questions like: “how did consciousness evolve?” [1], and nonsensical notions that consciousness is an “emergent property” [1].
1.
Constructing a Theory of Life, Miriam Frankel, 31 July 2018, https://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/230
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher replied on Aug. 7, 2018 @ 14:46 GMT
Dear Lorraine Ford,
The real VISIBLE Universe am not ordered. Let us try this one more time. The earth had a VISIBLE surface for millions of years BEFORE any mathematician ever published any of his or her senseless guesswork about performing abstract finite calculation. Nature devised one VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. There am no such a thing as any finite “higher phenomena.” All planets, and living things and grains of sand and flecks of soot have a real VISIBLE surface. All real VISIBLE phenomena has a real VISIBLE surface. It has to be the same VISIBLE surface.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Anderson S. wrote on Aug. 7, 2018 @ 21:42 GMT
Re emergent phenomena I have to disagree with "a gas has a temperature, based on the average motion of its particles: the faster they move, the hotter the gas. But the concept of temperature is meaningless if you try to apply it to any one of those gas particles individually".... I disagree because the temperature of the individual particle is the same as the temperature of an assembly of particles whose average motion is the same as the actual motion of the individual particle.
Also... this article repeats the common unjustified assumption that it is "observation" that collapses quantum states when it could well be, and is much more likely to be, just a certain level of interaction.
There are other similar problems throughout
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 8, 2018 @ 00:35 GMT
What about enzymes? They are able to exhibit catalytic function because of their particular shape. Shape resulting from folding of the sequence of amino acids. the individual amino acids or ions they are contain do not have the necessary shape to function as the whole enzyme does. So the function is only present at the scale of the whole enzyme. Making catalytic function of the enzyme an emergent property.
report post as inappropriate
Andrew R. Scott replied on Aug. 8, 2018 @ 10:05 GMT
OK (re enzymes) but that is just using a word - emergence - to cover effects that are a net result of several combined interactions. I am not sure using such a word takes us any further forward in understanding.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Aug. 8, 2018 @ 12:47 GMT
I agree with Andrew.
As AI researcher Eliezer Yudkowsky said in
The Futility of Emergence (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/8QzZKw9WHRxjR4948/the-futil
ity-of-emergence):
"The phrase "emerges from" is acceptable, just like "arises from" or "is caused by" are acceptable, if the phrase precedes some specific model to be judged on its own merits.
However, this is not the way "emergence" is commonly used. "Emergence" is commonly used as an explanation in its own right...
[A] fun exercise is to replace the word "emergent" with the old word, the explanation that people had to use before emergence was invented:
Before: Life is an emergent phenomenon.
After: Life is a magical phenomenon.
Before: Human intelligence is an emergent product of neurons firing.
After: Human intelligence is a magical product of neurons firing.
..."Emergence" has become very popular, just as saying "magic" used to be very popular. "
Georgina, when you you the word "emergent", are you suggesting that magic has occurred?
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Aug. 8, 2018 @ 13:00 GMT
The last line should read:
Georgina, when you use the word "emergent", are you suggesting that magic has occurred?
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher replied on Aug. 8, 2018 @ 14:55 GMT
Dear Anderson S,
There am no such a real thing as emerging or “re-emergent phenomena.” All real phenomena always have a real VISIBLE surface.
Dear Georgina Woodward,
At the moment, Joe Fisher has a VISIBLE surface. Although he might appear to be separated from you, you too have a VISIBLE surface. It would be physically impossible for Nature to devise different kinds of VISIBLE surfaces. Unnatural invisible enzymes have never existed.
Dear Lorraine Ford,
All living creatures and vegetation have a VISIBLE surface. All inanimate entities have a VISIBLE surface. All dinosaur bones have a VISIBLE surface. This is because Nature only devised one unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 8, 2018 @ 21:02 GMT
Lorraine,
Magic is a kind of deception that happens when an observer has incomplete information from which to construct their understanding of what has occurred. As performed by magicians. Or, as I think you may be using the word, a supernatural occurrence brought about by some kind of will. Such as in the belief system of Wicca. The emergence of the catalytic ability of enzymes fits neither sort of magic. Its function happens because of its shape. That functional shape is not a property of its constituents but only of the whole.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Aug. 8, 2018 @ 22:53 GMT
Georgina,
Are you talking about a universe where every outcome has a cause? A cause means that an outcome was determined by a relationship representable by a mathematical equation, a number assignment, or an algorithm [1].
If you are talking about “systems whose high-level behaviors arise or "emerge" from the interaction of many low-level elements” [2], then you are talking about a system where every outcome has a cause, a system where nothing new has actually “emerged”. Instead, a pattern of behaviours has been labelled with a word.
“Temperature”, “cyclone” and “hurricane” are words describing outcome patterns that have a cause. Despite our word-usage, these patterns themselves cause nothing, it is the underlying relationships (representable as equations, numbers and algorithms) that cause outcomes.
It’s the same with enzyme behaviour/outcomes. Or are you are saying that the shape of an enzyme did not have a cause?
……………….
1. What, in turn, created these relationships in the first place is a separate issue.
2.
The Futility of Emergence, (AI researcher) Eliezer Yudkowsky, https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/8QzZKw9WHRxjR4948/the-futili
ty-of-emergence
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 9, 2018 @ 07:40 GMT
The shape comes from the protein's folding. It isn't mechanical folding but involves not just the protein itself but interaction with the environment; in which it is buffeted until parts that will bind together come into proximity. So each folding event of a particular protein could play out somewhat differently but result in the same folded configuration. There will be variation in the time taken to fold I expect. There is some seeming randomness or complexity involved in the interaction with the environment which means it isn't just rote playing out of an instruction that is the same every time. While the sequence of the unfolded protein's amino acids is important for folding, it isn't by itself the cause of the folding occurring.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Aug. 10, 2018 @ 00:30 GMT
So Georgina, did any new information arise, i.e. did any new information emerge that was not entirely accounted for by the existing physics of the situation (where chemistry underlies the biology/behaviour of enzymes, and physics underlies the chemistry)?
You seem to be saying that the enzyme folding indicates that a new spatial information relationship has somehow been created, that is not entirely accounted for by the physics.
This begs the question: a new spatial information relationship has been created by whom?
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 10, 2018 @ 03:30 GMT
A shape is formed that did not previously exist, and that enzyme shape has a function that the unfolded protein does not have. I am not saying the folding isn't accounted for by the physics that happens but that it isn't following a set prescription of what must be done step by step, that is the same every time. The parts of the protein that must come together are the same but what happens in the environment is not fully controlled by the protein. If you mean by 'a new spatial information relationship' a new shape, i.e. a new distribution of the matter in space including relations of parts to each other then yes that is formed; not created, but by 'self assembly', not by someone
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 10, 2018 @ 05:54 GMT
Perhaps "environment driven self assembly" is a useful descriptive phrase. As the energy for motion, which results in the finished folding, comes from interaction with molecules and ions in the environment. Most probably water molecules, as the inside of the cell is an aqueous solution, and ions dissolved in it. As well as the effects of fields generated by charged particles that are part of the protein sequence.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Aug. 10, 2018 @ 08:58 GMT
Georgina,
Either the enzyme configuration is 100% determined by the physics (i.e. by laws of nature), or it is not 100% determined by the physics.
If the configuration is 100% determined by the physics, and all interactions of other molecules with the enzyme are 100% determined by the physics, then nothing has emerged.
But more correctly, molecules themselves don't interact: all interactions are
information interactions. And all information is a relationship (representable as equations, algorithms, and/or number assignments) that exists in a context of other information relationships. So the real question is: has a new information relationship been created or not? Does a new information relationship exist from the point of view of the enzyme; and does a new information relationship exist from the point of view of other molecules, atoms and particles? A new information relationship is equivalent to a new law of nature because it determines some of the outcome numbers.
Has new information emerged/been created or not? From whose point of view does the information exist? Who created the information?
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 10, 2018 @ 22:21 GMT
A catalytic function has been enabled that did not previously exist. I don't see anything wrong with calling that an emergent function. That function changes the relationship of the protein sequence to the molecules or ions that are catalyzed by interaction with it. The topology is altered. That's lots of new spatial relations if all of the relations of individual constituent particles are considered. The enzyme doesn't have a point of view, nor do the reagents with which it interacts. If by point of view you mean opinion. But if they did they would notice their relationship is different upon interaction if the reagent attaches to a binding site. Yes outcome numbers are also altered. As by catalysis involving the enzyme the chemical reaction is sped up.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Aug. 11, 2018 @ 00:03 GMT
Georgina,
If new information has not been added to this tiny part of the universe that we are discussing, then there is no new function. Every detail of a hurricane is explainable in terms of lower-level information-processing events; and every detail of enzyme interactions are also explainable in terms of lower-level information-processing events
unless new information has been added to the system. New function, i.e. new lawful power over the outcome numbers, means that one or more new information relationships have been added to the universe-system.
I know you don’t understand this, but if mathematics (which we use to represent the universe-system) has shown us anything, it is that situations/outcomes are a consequence of rules/laws/relationships. The reverse is not true: rules/laws/relationships do not emerge from situations/outcomes. Only those who refuse to face facts claim that rules/laws/information relationships can emerge from situations/outcomes.
So, who created the new information relationship? And who knows about it? This enzyme-related information certainly does not exist from our human point-of-view (it is only science that has brought this information to our attention): this capacity of an enzyme or a cell, to know about new information, existed long before human beings existed.
Who created the new information relationship? And who knows about it?
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 11, 2018 @ 02:04 GMT
Rules and Laws describing or mathematically representing relationships can be 'distilled' from observation of outcomes of particular circumstances. The distilled rules or Laws can then be used predicatively, applied to similar circumstances. That does not mean nature has a rule book in some platonic realm (additional to material reality) from which it is able to receive instruction of what to do.The rules are a characterization of what happens not necessary instruction of what to do, so it can happen.
The enzyme can act ass a catalyst because of its 3D shape and topology, it does not need permission from a new rule. The shape is not formed by someone but by 'environment driven self assembly'. No one need know about it for it to function. An experiment can be conducted and the function of the enzyme characterized by an equation if wanted.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Aug. 11, 2018 @ 03:00 GMT
So Georgina,
You are saying that an enzyme is like a hurricane: every detail of its interactions are explainable in terms of lower-level information-processing events.
I.e. no new function has emerged: just like the word "hurricane" is nothing but a label we give to something that is fully explainable in terms of lower-level information-processing events, the word "enzyme" is nothing but a label we give to something that is fully explainable in terms of lower-level information-processing events.
You are saying that, with an enzyme, nothing new has emerged except the label we give it. You seem to be contradicting yourself because you have previosly asserted that the "catalytic function of the enzyme [is] an emergent property" (Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 8, 2018 @ 00:35 GMT).
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 11, 2018 @ 21:29 GMT
No Lorraine, the content of your first two and a half paragraphs is what you have been saying, not me. I am not contradicting myself but you are trying to make it look as though I am. Individual amino acids or even the sequence of amino acids unfolded does not enable and explain the function of the enzyme. The folded shape and topology enables and explains the function. The catalytic function is emergent at that particular state of organization.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Aug. 11, 2018 @ 22:55 GMT
No Georgina,
There is no such thing as order, or “self-organisation”, or “emergence” out of chaos: that’s just a misleading catchphrase.
Order/ “self-organisation”/ “emergence” never occurs out of chaos: order only occurs as a result of rules.
This is where the phrase “order out of chaos” is coming from: When you plot on a graph the numerical outcomes of a rule [1], human observers sometimes notice patterns or pseudo-patterns in the number outcomes plotted on the graph. These patterns/pseudo-patterns have no power in themselves to determine outcomes – it’s the other way around: it’s the rules which determine the pattern/pseudo-pattern outcomes.
Enzymes don’t “self-organise”, order does not emerge out of chaos. Any order in the enzyme is because of an existing lawful rule.
The only debate is whether, like a hurricane, every detail of its interactions are explainable in terms of lower-level information-processing events due to existing laws of nature; or whether it is apparent that a new rule has been added to the universe-system.
……………..
1. Where a rule is made up of equations, algorithms, and number assignments; and where, as a result of the rule, the number outcomes are sometimes represented as colours.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 11, 2018 @ 23:38 GMT
I don't think a hurricane is a comparable system. A small dust devil is like a miniature hurricane. There is no such thing as a miniature version of an enzyme I.e. The same type of functional structure at a smaller scale. The vectors for all of the individual air molecules could theoretically be amalgamated to get the mass movement of the whole hurricane; It is a question mostly of scale not complex organization.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Aug. 12, 2018 @ 00:06 GMT
“Despite the ubiquity of emergent behaviour there remains no deep understanding of emergence.
At each level of complexity, new laws, properties and phenomena arise and herein lies the problem.Properties describing one level of a complex system do not necessarily explain another level, despite how intrinsically connected the two may be. Understanding the emergence of the structure of molecules does not necessarily allow one to predict the emergence of cellular biology.” [1]
Georgina, as I said, the only debate is whether, like a hurricane, every detail of an enzyme’s interactions are explainable in terms of lower-level information-processing events due to existing laws of nature; or whether it is apparent that a new rule/law has been added to the universe-system. And the other issues are: what caused that rule, and what knows about the rule.
.......
1. Emergence: the remarkable simplicity of complexity, Andy Martin (Senior lecturer, Physics, University of Melbourne) and Kristian Helmerson (Professor of Physics, Monash University), 1 October 2014, https://theconversation.com/emergence-the-remarkable-simplic
ity-of-complexity-30973
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 12, 2018 @ 03:43 GMT
Lorraine, I have given the answer that the shape and topology of the folded enzyme 's protein is required for its function. Its function is not explicable by considering its constituents alone or considering it as an unfolded sequence. I don't see why a new rule needs to be specified. It seems to me you are saying the equivalent of a circular wheel can not roll unless a new rule is written enabling it. Different shapes can accomplish different things because of what they are not because of what they have been told they can do in a rule. If you think it can be done perhaps you would explain how an enzyme works using your 'lower level information'. I have described how I think the enzyme folding is facilitated. Perhaps you would like to explain how it occurs without involving the complex environment and interactions with it.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Aug. 12, 2018 @ 22:31 GMT
Georgina,
As I indicated, the only debate is:
1. Whether, like a hurricane, every detail of an enzyme (
naturally, I'm including it's shape/spatial configuration!!), and it's interactions, are explainable in terms of lower-level information-processing events due to existing laws of nature (which include variables representing relative spatial positions!!);
OR
2. Whether it is apparent that a new rule/law has been added to the universe-system.
Seemingly, a new rule
has been added to the universe-system.
So, what created the new rule, and what knows about/experiences the new rule?
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 12, 2018 @ 23:48 GMT
Can
you explain how the function of an enzyme comes about in terms of your "lower-level information-processing events" Or does the explaining the function of the whole, by means of shape and topology, require the whole to be considered? Parts of the enzyme do not have the catalytic function on their own. I don't think any new rule is needed for the function to emerge though, that is your specification
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Aug. 13, 2018 @ 22:38 GMT
Georgina,
Both free will and enzyme folding are high-level phenomena that, like all phenomena, rest on the foundation of physics. They are not explainable in terms of high-level phenomena or outcome situations – they are only explainable in terms of the laws of physics, and the fundamental-level nature of reality.
“Emergence” is a myth: it implies that outcome situations (representable as sets of variables and numbers) can be a logical cause of new laws/rules (representable as equations and algorithms), and thereby, new properties. But we know for a fact that only the reverse is true: the laws, and the nature of reality, are the cause of the outcome situations.
I’m claiming that both free will and enzyme folding are only explainable in terms of:
1) Adding new information relationships (representable as equations, algorithms and/or number assignments) to the universe; and
2) The necessary, fundamental aspect of the universe that creates and knows about information relationships is inherent in particles, atoms. molecules and living things, i.e. there is no numb, dumb matter.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Aug. 13, 2018 @ 22:44 GMT
Re the issue of whether new information can be added to the universe:
1. What IS information? Information in the universe consists of categories of information (like energy, momentum, time, relative spatial position) which equate to relationships between other categories of information, i.e. information in the universe always has context. Information is always relationship (representable as equations, algorithms and number assignments). More precisely, information is always the universe’s knowledge (representable as equations, algorithms and number assignments).
2. All particle, atomic and molecular information interactions are quantum events, so there is nothing simple and easily explained going on. Energy is not always conserved within these events i.e. new information
is added to the universe within these events.
3. A professor of physics and an associate professor of physics (and they are not the only ones) have come to the conclusion that: "At each level of complexity, new laws, . . .arise" [1].
.........
1. Emergence: the remarkable simplicity of complexity, Andy Martin (Senior lecturer, Physics, University of Melbourne) and Kristian Helmerson (Professor of Physics, Monash University), 1 October 2014, https://theconversation.com/emergence-the-remarkable-simplic
ity-of-complexity-30973
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 14, 2018 @ 00:37 GMT
I agree that new rules can apply to higher levels of organization or complexity. A man made wing shape has rules of physics associated with air flow that apply to it; that don't apply to the micro constituents within it. The whole can provide lift in appropriate circumstances. I don't think the new rule is necessary for the
shape to exist but is a result of what it is -and therefore often (but not exclusively) a reason for its manufacture. The wing shape could for example be a part of a static sculpture.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Lorraine Ford wrote on Aug. 7, 2018 @ 23:13 GMT
The view that a state of affairs can exist in the universe (e.g. that (what we represent as) law of nature relationships, number relationships, and algorithmic relationships can exist in the universe), without the universe knowing about it, can’t be supported. The existence of these relationships and the knowledge of these relationships are 2 sides of the same coin. [1]
Fundamental-level knowledge is of e.g. momentum relationship, energy relationship, and time/change derived from an algorithmic relationship (delta represents an algorithmic relationship).
But fundamental-level knowledge is different to the higher-level algorithmically-acquired knowledge of living things. Living things have no direct experience of fundamental-level knowledge. And conversely, particles atoms and molecules have no experience of higher-level knowledge.
And without physics, human beings would have no idea of the fundamental-level information relationships that inform the universe.
But physics has failed to notice that the existence of relationship and the knowledge of relationship are 2 sides of the same coin. So we keep getting nonsensical questions like: “how did consciousness evolve?” [2], and nonsensical notions that consciousness is an “emergent property” [2].
…………………………..
1. More precisely, the universe is not an entity: it’s the parts of the universe that have this knowledge, where the parts of the universe are particles, atoms molecules and living things.
2. Constructing a Theory of Life, Miriam Frankel, 31 July 2018, https://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/230
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher replied on Aug. 8, 2018 @ 15:02 GMT
Dear Lorraine Ford,
Reality am not a theory.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Jim Hoover wrote on Aug. 9, 2018 @ 22:52 GMT
Quantum mechanics theory gives no real mechanism for going from probable to actual and concentrates on the effects of measurement but seems to neglect size limits for superposition.
The efficiency of photosynthesis in converting light energy into chemical energy tends to make me skeptical of the intelligent observer transformation concept’s age-old wisdom. It seems that there are a lot of micro-macro interactions in light energy being absorbed by pigment molecules in leaves and then making 2 molecules, ATP & NADPH, to produce chemical energy, seemingly at a superposition efficiency -- this w/o observation.
I would tend to favor the gravitational decoherence idea of growing assembled quantum systems and the introduction of temperature and spectral density to their environment as additional causes of decoherence.
I always look with interest for new explanations of this process.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford wrote on Aug. 9, 2018 @ 23:12 GMT
In the universe, there is no relationship between things (like particles) as such (except maybe coherence): there is only relationship between information categories, where the relationship is itself an information category. Examples of information categories are energy, momentum, relative distance, and time. We represent these information relationships as equations, number assignments and algorithms.
In the universe, these known relationships between information categories have the status of law because they determine the outcome numbers. The reverse situation is not true: sets of outcome numbers do not determine relationships; relationships do not emerge from an objectively observed set of outcome numbers, even if the set of outcome numbers is given a label of “attractor”. And relationships do not emerge from situations, where a situation is a subjective point of view on the outcome numbers.
In the universe, all information has context, there is no information without context: any new category of information is necessarily a new relationship built out of existing information categories. So when it comes to living things, it becomes more apparent than ever that we need to understand what it is that builds/creates/constructs information relationships, and what knows these information relationships. The only candidate is things: particles, atoms, molecules and living things.
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher replied on Aug. 10, 2018 @ 14:29 GMT
Dear Lorraine Ford
There may be no finite relationship discernible in the humanly contrived pretentious senseless informational “universe” you stubbornly keep on referencing, however, the real VISIBLE physical Universe was provided by Nature.
There am only one unified VISIBLE infinite surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Aug. 10, 2018 @ 14:46 GMT
Dear Lorraine Ford
Invisible finite quantum particles that could be in multiple invisible places at the same time have never existed. There was never an invisible void. There was never an invisible big bang commencement of the universe. No invisible black hole has ever existed. These are just mindless human concepts. Nature devised the one real VISIBLE Universe allowable.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Aug. 12, 2018 @ 13:34 GMT
“Gravitational waves are the disturbance in the fabric of spacetime generated by accelerated masses and propagate as waves outward from their source at the speed of light.” Wikipedia
All real VISIBLE fabric has a real VISIBLE undisturbed surface. This am because Nature devised the only real VISIBLE physical structure of the real VISIBLE Universe allowable. There has only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Although scientists have nong proclaimed that the so-called “laws of physics” mandates that physical structure must be consistent throughout the universe, instead of observing the VISIBLE structure of themselves and their immediate surroundings, they wallow in the tedious senselessness of assuming invisible finite influence.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Aug. 14, 2018 @ 14:57 GMT
Why do theoretical physicists believe that there am finite amounts of matter immersed in empty curved space? Why do theoretical physicists publish preposterous claims such as this one posted anonymously on the GOOGLE Search that states: "Whilst it is correct that the accelerating expansion of space will mean that distant galaxies will disappear over the cosmic horizon, it is currently the case that the observable universe is smaller than this horizon. Thus there are at present no galaxies that we could once see that have 'gone over the horizon'.”
Only surface am observable. There has only ever been one naturally formed VISIBLE unified infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
There am no empty "expanding" space.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on Aug. 14, 2018 @ 20:02 GMT
Lot's of conditional qualifications, but that would seem necessary if we are to consider knowledge and information as having a real, existential physical property. And why not? Two millennia elapsed between the abstract identification of the orthogonal relationship and the experimental observation of it having a physical form in the electromagnetic dynamic. That argues well for information being physical rather than being an artifact of analysis.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 14, 2018 @ 22:06 GMT
You wrote "a physical form in the electromagnetic dynamic"
Only if time is considered as something existent in/over which forms can be distributed. But not if time is only the singular extant configuration of the universe, each configuration being a different time. So there is no orthogonal time dimension in external reality as opposed to the model.
I think that processes happen but, for the most part excluding life and computers, without adhering to a separate plan or set of rules. That rules can be found that apply to repetitive processes or similar circumstances does not mean they were causal. Which is different from, for example, following a kitting pattern or running the algorithm of a cellular automaton. In such cases the information controlling the change is separate from the process and the material reality being transformed by it.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 15, 2018 @ 11:41 GMT
Anonymous, I think I may have misinterpreted your post. I don't know whether you are talking of the orthogonal relationship of the time dimension to space or the orthogonal relationship of magnetic and electric components of electromagnetic radiation. Not sure I follow your argument. Are you saying that because the abstract notion was considered prior to the development of the physics, the abstract is in some way producing the actualized form in nature?
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher replied on Aug. 15, 2018 @ 14:33 GMT
Dear Anonymous and Georgina Woodward,
All real “physical” forms have a real VISIBLE surface. This am because Nature designed the only real physical structure of the Universe allowable. There has only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Did it ever occur to you that finite stubbornness might not be an attribute of a person supposedly having a dispassionate scientist’s mind?
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on Aug. 15, 2018 @ 19:21 GMT
G. Woodward,
I decline to create a fqxi account, the site seems to have technical problems which do not get adequate attention as would be expected of an enterprise associated with the level of expertise available through Perimeter Institute. I'm skeptical therefore of security safeguards, though I think there is some good as a public outreach and some value in serious dialogue presented here. So I occasionally browse, but a brief comment then requires use of the public box.
So without getting into a discourse, I would say your observations and questions do address the argument of what is meant by information being existential. The point of the abstraction in antiquity of orthogonality becoming observed experimentally in modernity goes to the original abstraction being an idealization of form in a comparatively primitive world. That abstraction derived from study and argument of relationships between simple ratios independent of scale, and for that matter independent of time or reference to space. Purely the ideal of ratios giving rise to geometric form, and thus implying space.
The Pythagoreans invented an abstract that then informed all manner of advancements in architecture, engineering, art, philosophy and even the formalization arithmetic and the equi-partition of the number line. So can we then argue that that evolution which led to the experimental observation of the right angle rule of electromotive force, is itself of existential origin discovered in the abstractions of idealizing thought in a earlier more primitive time? I think its would be worth arguing so as a line of inquiry.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 15, 2018 @ 20:44 GMT
Hi, the site does get a lot of spam. It might look like the site isn't working properly as the posts listed as recent can't all be accessed. However it is set up so spam posts, which are mostly advertising, can be reported as inappropriate and disappear while awaiting moderation.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 15, 2018 @ 22:03 GMT
I think the definition of existence that is used will either allow or disallow immaterial relation to be included. I would exclude them, reserving physical existence for substantial things and their relations. Brain activity in a material brain can easily be considered as something physical happening. A diagram on paper is a material representation, also something physical. But the immaterial concept without concurrent means of being known, through thought or visualization can be true/correct while not having a physical existence of itself -I think : )
report post as inappropriate
jim hughes replied on Aug. 17, 2018 @ 17:37 GMT
This forum, in terms of web presentation, is pretty bad. After a few posts it becomes very difficult to find the new ones and I usually give up. It doesn't help that many posts are repetitious to the point of obsession.
There'd be a lot more discussion here, at a higher level, if the forum software was replaced with something more up-to-date.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 17, 2018 @ 22:10 GMT
Jim, if "most recent first" is selected (in the left hand column), the most recent will appear at the top. Each time a new post is added to a discussion that isn't at the top, the posts are rearranged so the most recent is at the top. It is easier than having the posts in chronological order, the other option, I find. If the discussion you are looking for is not at the top of the page it is just a matter of scrolling down through the discussions until it is found. If nothing new has been added for a while and other discussions are happening it will appear lower down the page. (Annoyingly the amount of spam does mean that sometimes they are the only posts visible in the left hand list of recent posts.As the post itself disappears while awaiting moderation but not its listing in that column.) Hoping that is helpful as intended.
report post as inappropriate
jim hughes replied on Aug. 18, 2018 @ 20:11 GMT
Georgina, thanks for pointing out that obscure 'most recent first' setting, it does help... a little...
Jim
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Lorraine Ford wrote on Aug. 15, 2018 @ 22:40 GMT
In quantum events, energy is not always conserved: i.e. the numbers, for variables like energy, don’t add up. In other words, in quantum events, new information [1] is added to the universe-system.
The interactions of a cyclone with trees, buildings and people can be understood in terms of lower-level, law of nature information interactions, where no new information has been added to the universe-system.
But the interactions of particles, atoms, molecules, and living things, have to be understood in terms of at least some new information having been added to the universe-system.
“Constructing a Theory of Life” is about constructing a theory of where this new information is coming from:
A) Does new information just emerge for no logical [2] reason (like Georgina, and other illogical people, claim); OR
B) Do certain forms of matter themselves create this new information?
I think it is becoming clear that matter itself is not the numb, dumb nothingness it has always been assumed to be.
…………….
1. Information in the universe, i.e. what the universe knows about, is representable as equations, algorithms, and number assignments.
2. Logic: “Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity”, https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/logic
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 16, 2018 @ 04:43 GMT
Lorraine, I have not claimed that new information just emerges for no logical reason. Putting words into other people's mouths and insults add nothing of value to your argument. They don't belong in a well reasoned discussion about physics.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Aug. 16, 2018 @ 08:49 GMT
Georgina,
yes you have in effect "claimed that new information just emerges for no logical reason".
Logic is “reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity” (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/logic).
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher replied on Aug. 16, 2018 @ 14:49 GMT
Dear Lorraine Ford and Georgina Woodward,
Not a single invisible finite “quantum event” has ever taken place. Please accept the fact that NATURE devised the only VISIBLE structure of the UNIVERSE allowable. There has only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring ETERNALLY in one infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light. All supposedly finite information can only be written by folk who have a surface and publish their finite written rubbish on a surface that can only be read by other people who have a surface. All other insects, fish, animals, birds and bacteria have surfaces and deal with reality much more effectively than stupid men do, because they are not deceived by supposedly finite SCIENTIFIC codswallop information.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 16, 2018 @ 22:16 GMT
Lorraine,
your "yes you have in effect "claimed..." is not the same as it having been claimed. You were presenting your own low opinion on what has been written as if it was the other's actual statement/claim.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Aug. 16, 2018 @ 22:18 GMT
Dear Joe,
I 100% agree that nature, including "insects, fish, animals, birds and bacteria", literally devised everything we see.
Best wishes,
Lorraine
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous replied on Aug. 16, 2018 @ 22:48 GMT
Georgina,
You implied that an
outcome situation could cause a new property/new information/new rule to emerge in the universe: this is completely illogical. .
This is the
type of situation that you seem to envision for enzyme folding, and this is a situation where nothing new emerges:
The interactions of a cyclone with trees, buildings and people can be understood in terms of lower-level, law of nature information interactions, where no new information has been added to the universe-system:
1. No new entity has emerged: the word “cyclone” is merely a description of an outcome situation that is a natural consequence of existing laws of nature.
2. No new “destructive property” has emerged: the destruction wrought by a cyclone is merely a natural consequence of existing laws of nature. “Properties” are merely a natural consequence of rules/laws of nature.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Aug. 16, 2018 @ 22:51 GMT
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 17, 2018 @ 00:01 GMT
A correctly folded enzyme has catalytic function whereas the unfolded or mis-folded or much deformed one does not. Rules pertaining to catalytic function apply to the correctly folded enzyme; such as temperature sensitivity affecting rate of catalysis, because of the effect of heat on its form. The rule does not apply the un-foldedd sequence because it does not work as a catalyst; Nor does it apply to the parts alone. This is very different from considering different scales within circulating air, or scales of moving air. There is a logical reason for the difference which is difference in shape/organisation not just scale. Some arrangements have shape and or topology that have functions because of that shape and or topology. Physics and chemistry that applies to the whole form does not necessarily apply to the constituents. The wing was another example.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Aug. 17, 2018 @ 14:18 GMT
No Georgina,
Nothing escapes physics. There is no scale in the universe in which physics does not apply. Underlying every shape, and at every scale, in whole or in part, it’s the physics that is doing it: it’s the rules (represented by equations, algorithms and number assignments) that determine the outcome numbers, including shapes of enzymes. The only question is whether any new information/rules have been input to the universe, or whether existing rules suffice to explain outcomes.
Just like your erroneous concept of an “image reality”, your concept of a “shape” is erroneous. There is no such fundamental-level information in the universe as “shape”. Both “shapes”, and the “image” of our surrounding reality that we subjectively experience, are higher-level information that require the logical analysis and collation of lower-level information, via the equivalent of algorithmic rules. Then you have to ask where the rules came from.
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 17, 2018 @ 21:49 GMT
Lorraine, I have not argued that 'shape' is fundamental level information. I have argued that it is important for emergence of some functions. Re. your and other's denial of emergence. The shape of the enzyme is a product of the process of folding the protein sequence. (And 'image reality' is a product; of an organism's sensory system and CNS, or of a device, or sensitive material. Irrelevant to this discussion)) I don't see that an algorithmic rule is needed for the protein to fold, when the energy for movement is provided by interactions with other molecules in the environment. And the environmental conditions surrounding the protein are affected by the topology and charges on the protein, enabling sites that must bind or align to do so when the protein is moved in such a way as they come in proximity. It is a physical process not a rule "running the show'.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Aug. 18, 2018 @ 01:38 GMT
Georgina,
All your verbiage, describing what you think is going on, is totally irrelevant.
E.g. your verbiage about "environmental conditions" and "topology" is totally irrelevant and redundant because
lawful physical interactions in the universe ALWAYS occur in the context of environments. And "topology" is just a higher-level description of a lower-level-rule-based environment.
EITHER an enzyme is like a cyclone (where nothing genuinely new emerges except the word-labels human beings give to situations), OR genuine new information has somehow been input to the situation.
And all your convoluted verbiage is in effect saying that an enzyme
is like a cyclone.
By the way, I like the absurd way that you deny the existence of the laws of physics: "It is a physical process not a rule "running the show'".
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 18, 2018 @ 02:14 GMT
Lorraine, I have not denied there are laws of physics. Nor am I putting the cart before the horse. Rules and laws tell
us how, the way in which, something is happening. They are not telling it to happen; In my opinion.
I will end my discussion with you here, since you consider what I have to say as irrelevant verbiage. Your corruption of what I have actually said is annoying as is your rudeness. We really aren't 'on the same wavelength', unfortunately.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Aug. 18, 2018 @ 02:47 GMT
Georgina,
Face the facts:
A different environment is just (representable as)
a different set of numbers for the same fundamental variables (like energy, momentum, relative position, time) and the same fundamental law of nature relationships.
In other words, the laws of nature can handle all different environments: its just a matter of different numbers in the same mathematical relationships.
There are no “special environments” in the universe-system, there are only different numbers.
Unless, you add new information (representable as equations, algorithms, and/or number assignments) to the system.
In any case, all particle, atomic and molecular information interactions are quantum events, so there is nothing simple and easily explained going on. Energy is not always conserved within these events i.e. new information
is definitely added to the universe within these events.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Aug. 20, 2018 @ 13:45 GMT
Re “We really aren't 'on the same wavelength'” [1]:
I realised when listening to John Marsden on Q&A [2] on TV tonight that Georgina is a “concrete thinker” and I’m more of an “abstract thinker”, when it comes to these issues. This explains everything.
1. Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 18, 2018 @ 02:14 GMT
2. http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Stefan Weckbach wrote on Aug. 16, 2018 @ 06:32 GMT
Concerning the big questions, in the end, we know NOTHING. Except perhaps that Joe Fisher's dictum of "reality isn't a theory" must somewhat be true.
I stick to Stewart Cowan's comment and opinion that holy scripture is relevant for explaining the big questions. The bible is a prophetic book and many of its prophecies have been already fullfilled in the past. One has to carfully study them and there are good books out there that list these fullfilled prophecies together with biblical archeology (the findings of bible scriptures that can be accurately dated). Even the exact day Jesus rode on the donkey into Jerusalem (10. Nisan 32 AD) was prophecied in the old testament. Many people do not know these things due to a lack of personal serious investigations. Nonetheless these investigations could have huge merrits for one's understanding of the big how's and why's.
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher replied on Aug. 16, 2018 @ 15:18 GMT
Dear Stefan Weckbach,
The biggest mistake orthodox Jews ever made was allowing English scholars in the early 17th century to translate their rabbinical writing into the supposedly definitive English language. The English scholars that did the translation published the greatest book of fiction ever written. Please read Thomas Paine’s fine pamphlet, The Age of Reason for the full details.
Reality am not a theory am not “close” to being the truth. Please accept the fact that NATURE devised the only VISIBLE structure of the UNIVERSE allowable. There has only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring ETERNALLY in one infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Aug. 20, 2018 @ 06:05 GMT
Dear Joe Fisher,
Thomas Paine’s book is highly outdated and cannot contribute anything to enlighten the historical truth about the genesis of the holy scriptures and their truthful contents. Paine’s book was published in 1807, years before Robert Anderson published his results concerning the prophecy of Daniel 9 ff. in 1888. Nontheless I think Paine was true about the clerical system of the roman-catholic curch, since the latter’s hierarchies were built according to the hierarchies of the roman empire.
Since then, biblical archeology has advanced rapidly, early copies of complete Jesaja and other parts of the holy scriptures were found in Qumran and could be dated accurately. The abrahamitian beliefs and also the christian beliefs are about a creator of all of nature. Nature itself is the creation of God, not God itself. See for example the Gospel of John, Chapter 1, 1-12 were it has been made clear that Christ has been the creator behind all of nature as we know it. All of this has nothing to do with your musings about some “non-surface light” (until you accept that your “non-surface light” is a spiritual light, it is Christ, the light of the world).
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 21, 2018 @ 03:04 GMT
Hi Stefan,
the fulfilling of a prophesy such as riding on a donkey into Jerusalem is not like a double blind test as used in medical research. The participants in the fulfillment knew of the prophesies, and may have decided to fulfill them in order to add authority or gain popular support for their 'movement'. Jesus was acquainted with the temple and holy writings from an early age. As indicated by the story of him getting 'lost' and being found preaching in the temple. No doubt he continued to study the writings as he grew. It would have been more amazing if the prophesies were only revealed after fulfillment.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Aug. 21, 2018 @ 18:24 GMT
Hi Georgina,
i understand what you intend. But the case is far more complicated. Jesus couldn’t choose to be born in Bethlehem. He couldn’t choose to be nailed on the cross (since the Jews could have chosen not Barrabas, but Jesus as the victim), he couldn’t choose that the roman soldiers put the lancet into his body, that they gambled for his clothes and many many more facts.
The writings of the gospels are made by direct eye-witnesses. These witnesses couldn’t afford to lie, since at the time they wrote their gospels, many other eye-witnesses were still alive. If they had lied concerning the prophesies, christianity wouldn’t have had such a huge success, but would have drowned very fast into unknown history. By the way, crucifiction wasn’t invented yet by the romans when the prophecy of a messiah that should be nailed was written down cneturies before.
Best wishes,
Stefan
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 23, 2018 @ 00:11 GMT
Hi Stefan,
it was a planned pregnancy. Birth families home town of Bethlehem could have been a selection criterion. As to fulfill the prophesy of resurrection the Crucifixion had to happen maybe Jesus' supporters were quiet or deliberately less vocal than they would have been if they really wanted him released. Some Roman soldiers were already 'converted'. Maybe the necessary spearing was deliberately non lethal. Perhaps with some theatrics to make it appear a worse injury than it was. Jesus was also taken down early from the cross. Perhaps the Roman soldiers didn't want him dead. Even Pontius Pilate said he found no fault in him. Just a few ideas. Faith is what it is. It provides a certainty that science can't. Science as I see it is about inquiry, including what if things are not as they seem?
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Aug. 23, 2018 @ 07:00 GMT
Hi Georgina,
no, faith is not about certainty, it is about trusting from within the heart.
Your scenarios are a little bit conspiracy-like. You have to take into account that in the times of Jesus, the written word was the only possibility to conserve cultural contents. Especially religious contents were such holy that the translaters and copy-men got castigated when they wrote a...
view entire post
Hi Georgina,
no, faith is not about certainty, it is about trusting from within the heart.
Your scenarios are a little bit conspiracy-like. You have to take into account that in the times of Jesus, the written word was the only possibility to conserve cultural contents. Especially religious contents were such holy that the translaters and copy-men got castigated when they wrote a single incorrect sign down. There was a whole class of such men that were only consumed by copying these texts and were explicitely educated for this holy service.
Since the writers of the gospels were Jews too, they couldn’t allow themselves to lie about anything they write. Even if they did, every reader of their “lies” must have laughed out loud and the gospels couldn’t spread like they did. Writing for example that Jesus healed many people whereas your conspiracy-theory suggests that he didn’t healed a single person makes no sense in the times after Jesus died. Remember that he walked through half of Palestine more than once within 3 years. Therefore, according to your theory, there must have been many eye-witnesses, but none of them saw an actual healing. According to your theory, these “healings” must have been just rumours and none of the people that met Jesus have ever seen a single healing from him. Worse: even his disciples never saw a single healing done by him.
Take for example the gospel of Luke. He writes in chapter 1, verse 3 that from the beginning he investigated everything about the “case”. It may be that he really investigated and interviewed all the people and according to the results, he wrote down his gospel with good conscience. The problem here is that everything he researched must have been based on lies from eye-witnesses (still living) or other people. For this scenario we have to assume that every man and woman lied to him in respect to the important things that could qualify Jesus as the real Messiah. Or alternatively, that every man and woman he spoke with didn’t really know what they are talking about (because they only heard that Jesus did this and that but never saw it directly). Even with some good will I would estimate such a scenario as very unlikely. It would require that all these people have fooled each other. Remember that the majority of the Jews didn’t accept Jesus as the coming Messiah. The Jews weren’t idiots or fools. If Jesus didn’t heal anybody in the temple, the Pharisee would have soon spread the word that Jesus never healed anyone in their temple. Now, according to your theory, this may have been historically the case. But then, the gospels simply lie about these facts and if not the gospels lie about them, the disciples of Jesus must have fooled everybody who trusted them and their words.
Let’s go to some other aspects of the gospels. Jesus said that the temple will be destroyed. 70 A.D. the temple was destroyed by the romans. They surrounded Jerusalem and crucified many people on the hills. The gospels said that the believers should be aware that this would come to pass and they should flew to the mountains. Thanks to God, in about I think 67 or 68 A.D. the sourroundings of Jerusalem was paused because Nero died and the man who was in charge for the surroundings wanted to be the next Emperor of the roman Empire. This gave the believers the time to go out of this city.
The next prophecy says that the Jews once will return to their homeland in the endtimes after having been spread all over the earth having no homeland after the destruction of the temple. Also this prophecy has been fullfilled. Since 1890, many Jews went back to their homeland (from Russia) and tried to recultivate their land. Even more: After two world-wars that tried to efface the Jewish race from the earth, these Jews officially became back a part of their homeland. Since at that time the land was highly desolate and infested with malaria, they had much to do to reagricultivate it to live from it. As you know, they turned the land into a kind of Garden Eden by planting Millions of trees and plants. Also this was prophecied in the old testament.
If you take together all the fullfilled prophecies and make a calculation about the probability for them to all occur according to the scriptures, you will find that the probability for that is much to small to ever occur as a humanly fabricated conspiracy. Or put it another way: there must be something very strong that leads humanity to execute such a mindblowing conspiracy. And I believe that this “something” is the reliable word of God, that the healings by Jesus took place and that denying them is a conspiracy of human pride. We think to know everything about nature. Therefore we exclude miracles and godly intervention. But do we really know everything about nature – or do we only believe that we know everything? And according to which sources do we believe that we know everything about nature? Isn’t it true that these sources are not scientifical, but personal and philosophical opinions about the things we already found out about nature (laws of nature etc.)? Who says that what we already found out must be all there is? Couldn’t it be that the spreading of the belief that the laws of nature must be considered as the modern version of a universal God is a similar conspiracy as you suggest for the case of Jesus, a conspiracy based on rumours and personal philosophical beliefs, but not on provable facts?
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 23, 2018 @ 22:40 GMT
Hi Stefan, I haven't presented a conspiracy theory about Jesus but just presented a few ideas in response to our own. You wrote ".. your conspiracy-theory suggests that he didn’t healed a single person makes no sense in the times after Jesus died." I didn't say anything about Jesus healing people or not healing them. I think he probably did help people as a a healer.You wrote "Who says that what we already found out must be all there is?" Is anyone saying that? I think I will leave our conversation here. I Haven't meant to cause offence.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Aug. 24, 2018 @ 05:22 GMT
Hi Georgina,
i am not offended (why do you think so?). Sure didn't you say anything about Jesus healing people or not healing them. And i never made the claim that you did. My remarks on that issue are (at least for me) nonetheless valid and worth writing them down and publish them, since many people have similar ideas as yours and i think it's worth pointing out that such ideas are inconsistent when one takes into account facts that many people do not know due to lack of information.
As far as you presented your ideas, they are inconsistent for me, so i have to write why. Hope you are not offended by that. It would have been interesting to know whether or not you believe that Jesus healed a man with a withered hand the way the gospel tells. "Who says that what we already found out must be all there is?". There are many people alone here at fqxi that in fact say such a thing. Just read the many essays once again. Sure you didn't say this sentence in our conversation, but i never made the claim that you did. It is generally adressed to those who think that way.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Lorraine Ford wrote on Aug. 16, 2018 @ 22:06 GMT
Logic is about valid reasoning. Logic is about what can be deduced from existing propositions and rules.
Logic does not create these propositions or rules: no propositions or rules “emerge” from logic. The source of the propositions and rules is outside the scope of logic.
And so in our universe-system, the source of the rules [1] cannot be logically deduced.
What
can be deduced, is whether an outcome is a logical consequence of existing rules, or whether the outcome is due to a new rule [1] having been “input” to the universe-system. Some outcomes of quantum events can only be seen as a new rule (e.g. a new number assigned to an existing variable) having been “input” to the universe-system.
Logic does not create the rules. In our universe, the only candidate that could create and know about these rules, is matter itself: particles, atoms, molecules and living things. It is reasonable to conclude that matter is not the numb, dumb nothingness it has always been assumed to be.
............
1. Where rules can be represented as equations, algorithms and/or number assignments.
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher replied on Aug. 17, 2018 @ 14:47 GMT
Dear Lorraine Ford,
I have notified over two hundred PhD certificate holders including Professor Max Tegart, that Nature must have devised the only physical structure of the real Universe allowable. That natural singular physical structure must be amenable to all life forms for here on earth, all sorts of life forms presently prevail. There must only have ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Not one of these over two hundred PhD certificate holders including Professor Max Tegart, has offered one word of rebuttal to my assertion. They dare not. Although they boast about their search for truth, riches, and Nobel Prizes only accrue to those theoretical physicists who fabricate fantasies about invisible quantum particles that can easily appear in multiple invisible places at the same finite point in time.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher replied on Aug. 17, 2018 @ 16:10 GMT
Correction:
The correct name am Professor Max Tegmark.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Aug. 18, 2018 @ 13:00 GMT
This utterly preposterous codswallop has been published online at the Closer to Truth Facebook Page website.
“Scientists at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, "have found evidence that the faintest satellite galaxies orbiting our own Milky Way galaxy are amongst the very first galaxies to form in our Universe.”
The earth had a real visible surface for millions of years before Professor Carlos Frank, and Dr. Sownak Bose, and Dr. Alis Deason ever appeared on that visible surface and published their asinine assumption that “When the Universe was about 380,000 years old, the very first (invisible finite) atoms formed. These were (assumed to be invisible finite) hydrogen atoms, the simplest (supposed) element in the (humanly contrived abstracted finite ) periodic table. These (invisible finite) atoms collected into (invisible finite) clouds and began to cool gradually and settle into the small (invisible) clumps or "halos" of (invisible) dark matter that (finitely) emerged from the (silent invisible) Big Bang.” And well before unnatural humanly devised computer simulation had replaced humanly contrived common sense.
Obviously, Nature must have devised the only real visible physical construct of the real Universe allowable. There has only ever been one visible unified infinite surface eternally occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Every real star and every real planet and every real asteroid and every real comet and every real meteor and every real speck of interstellar dust in every real galaxy has always had a real visible surface. Every real observer has had a real visible surface. Only surface is visible no matter in which direction any observer might look. There could only ever be one infinite surface. No part of infinite surface could possibly be finitely “older” or finitely “younger” than any other part of infinite surface was.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford wrote on Aug. 18, 2018 @ 21:36 GMT
Re Georgina Woodward’s claims that “It is a physical process not a rule "running the show'.”, and that “Rules and laws tell
us how, the way in which, something is happening. They are not telling it to happen” [1]:
Logic is about valid reasoning and deductions based on pre-existing propositions and/or rules. Without pre-existing propositions and/or rules, nothing can be deduced.
And without the assumption that the universe has an
actual logical basis (i.e.
actual rule-relationships exist), then no logical deductions about the universe can be made, by physicists or anybody else. [2]
Denying that the universe is based on
actual rule-relationships, then Georgina has no basis for logical deductions about the universe.
Denying that the universe is based on
actual rule-relationships, Georgina is free to make claims that have no logical basis.
1. Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 17, 2018 @ 21:49 GMT , Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 18, 2018 @ 02:14 GMT .
2. The source of the rule-relationships is a different issue.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford wrote on Aug. 18, 2018 @ 22:56 GMT
Re Georgina Woodward’s claims of “emergence”:
Physical interactions in the universe always occur in the context of their environments. While the
same fundamental variables (like energy, momentum, relative position, time) and the
same fundamental law of nature relationships/rules are always there, a
different environmental situation is representable as a
different set of numbers for the variables in the equations/rules.
So the claim of “emergence” caused by an environmental situation is the claim that a set of numbers causes the “emergence” of something new. In a logical, rule-based system, this is clearly preposterous.
Emergentists always seem to be reluctant to, or unable to, specify exactly what it is that is supposed to emerge.
But in a logical, rule-based system you’ve got 2 choices: 1. (what we would represent as) a new number assignment (i.e. a new initial-value rule); and 2. (what we would represent as) a new rule, where a new rule is a new category of information (i.e. a new variable). Rules can be represented as equations, algorithms or number assignments.
In a logical rule-based system, the rules do not emerge as an
output from the system: the rules are
input to the system.
The rules are the basis for the universe-system’s logical functioning. But where the rules come from, the source of the rules, is a different issue.
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Aug. 19, 2018 @ 12:38 GMT
Dear Lorraine Ford,
As I have explained in a previous comment: I have notified over two hundred PhD certificate holders including Professor Max Tegmark, that Nature must have devised the only physical structure of the real Universe allowable. That natural singular physical structure must be amenable to all life forms for here on earth, all sorts of life forms presently prevail. There must only have ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Not one of these over two hundred PhD certificate holders including Professor Max Tegmark, has offered one word of rebuttal to my assertion. They dare not. Although they boast about their search for truth, riches, and Nobel Prizes only accrue to those theoretical physicists who fabricate fantasies about invisible quantum particles that can easily appear in multiple invisible places at the same finite point in time.
I expect nothing from the scientific community. However, I did not expect that you would be so ignorant that you would assume that this Community would be more interested in following your meaningless catty dispute with Georgina Woodward than they would be in considering my revolutionary ideas about the real Universe.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on Aug. 23, 2018 @ 23:15 GMT
Stefan,
Slaveholding societies break up even family units and scatter them to the far reaches to prevent cultural cohesion necessary for revolt. So how could Mosses have gathered the great mass of people from twelve whole tribes to the center of the most productive area of the Egyptian Empire to foment an escape in the first place? As Moses successor, David forged the world's first known mobile, self sustaining military expeditionary force and led a genocidal campaign leaving massive amounts of archaeological and anthropological evidence in its wake. He is studied by War Colleges in every nation large enough to have one. He was a ruthless, despotic ruler who broke every one of the Ten Commandments, murdering a man to take his wife even. Exodus is the word of David, a self serving can-do rationalization to provide a narrative as the raison d'etre of cultural survival. And Exodus is one of many pantheologically. Myth begets prophesy, blind faith perpetuates it.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Aug. 24, 2018 @ 08:55 GMT
Dear Anonymus,
your comment makes an extended reply necessary. But before dipping into moral arguments for musings that Exodus and the like are just myths, one has to calculate the historical dates of these events with the help of the numbers given in the bible. Since i want to argue scientifically and not emotionally in the first place, this is necessary. Only after such an investigation...
view entire post
Dear Anonymus,
your comment makes an extended reply necessary. But before dipping into moral arguments for musings that Exodus and the like are just myths, one has to calculate the historical dates of these events with the help of the numbers given in the bible. Since i want to argue scientifically and not emotionally in the first place, this is necessary. Only after such an investigation into the scientific evidence it makes sense to me to dip into moral or anthropological arguments.
Salomo's temple in Jerusalem was destroyed 586 B.C. by the Babylonians. About the life of Nebukadnezar we own many cuneiform writings with observations of 5 planets and the moon. There are about 30 informations about these planet constellations. With this we can date the time of Nebukadnezar absolutely. The result is the 19. year of Nebukadnezar (see 2 Kings, Chapter 25, 8).
Take the date of 586 B.C. as absolute historical date for the destruction of Salomo's temple. And now calculate back with the numbers contained within the bible. Eventually you now have to read some bible-texts, because we first need some numbers from first and second chronicles as well as first and second book of Kings. Add all the numbers for the kings after Salomo and you end up with 390 years. These 390 years are additionally mentioned in Hesekiel 4,4. So far we derive with that at the division of the 12 tribes after Salomo’s death at 976 B.C. (586 + 390).
Then you have to read Acts 13, 21. Saul was king for 40 years. Then 2. Kings 2, 11, David was king for 40 years. Then read 2. chronicles 9, 30 where it is stated that Salomo was king for 40 years. The result is 120 years, the monarchy of Israel where these kings ruled over all 12 tribes.
Now we are in the year 1096 B.C., the year 1 of Saul. Before Saul, Israel was reigned by the Judges (book of Judges). This time period lasted about 450 years (see Acts 13, 18-20). We now arrive at 1546 B.C. and go further back with the capture of Kanaan which lasted 6 years (4. Moses, 9 and Joshua 14). With this and the walk in the desert (40 years) we arrive at 1592 B.C. (1546 + 6 + 40). And finally you have to take the 300 years in the book of Judges 11, 26 (from Jair till the last year of the desert walk) then you can derive the X for the capture of Kanaan forward until the start of the times of the Judges (14 years).
We now arrive at 1606 B.C. for the Exodus from Egypt ((1546 + 6 + 14 + 40) – much earlier than for example Israel Finkelstein and others claim. Let’s look at the difference:
1606 (biblical cronology) – 1230 (Finkelstein and others) = 376 years
For professional archeologist and ägyptologists, these 376 years of difference may be very familiar to them. It was the British ägyptologist David Rohl who proposed in his book “A test of time” that one has to push the date for the Exodus some 380 years backwards, because for him, most of the cornerstone dates of ägyptology aren’t tenable anymore. Of course, people like Finkelstein disagree and I think Finkelstein as well as Rohl are right: One hasn’t to push the date for the Exodus backwards arbitrarily, one only has to properly read the bible. Maybe both of them haven’t done that, at least Finkelstein claims that what the bible states are no more than fairy tales. It is no wonder that he concludes that at 1230 B.C. there was no such city as Jericho. Because Jericho was destroyed at about 1566 B.C. and until then never rebuilt again properly with a city wall (read this at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho if you like).
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher replied on Aug. 24, 2018 @ 14:51 GMT
Dear Anonymous and Stefan,
The Periodic Table am a work of fiction. Invisible finite atoms have never existed. The English translation of the Bible am fiction. No invisible empty void has ever preceded one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 25, 2018 @ 00:51 GMT
Joe, you only provide an explanation for appearance. Appearance can not provide an explanation for how things happen, such as chemistry (i.e. the way in which it is enabled, to happen as it does). The theory of atomic elements and their characteristic properties goes a long way in explaining chemistry. I think the value of an idea is enhanced if it has explanatory power.
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Weckbach replied on Aug. 25, 2018 @ 04:51 GMT
Georgina, pardon me asking something, but it popped up... Where can I find Joe Fisher's *explanation* for appearance?
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher replied on Aug. 25, 2018 @ 12:54 GMT
Dear Georgina and Stefan,
I AM NOT EXPLAINIG ANYTHING. Natural reality am not explicable. Natural reality has to be negotiated by every living creature. One more time. Nature MUST have provided the one and only physical structure of the real VISIBLE Universe allowable.. What do you see no matter in which direction you look? You see VISIBLE surface. What do you think a dinosaur saw no matter in which direction it looked? It saw a mist covered VISIBLE surface. You have been wrongfully taught by physicists that their EXPLANATION of physical structure am that it consists of a finite amount of matter that has existed in some sort of finite curved space/time for a finite duration. This matter, they assert am made up of finite invisible atoms that only they can measure. Please try to remember this: There am only one form of life that has a VISIBLE surface. This one form of life dwells in one unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 25, 2018 @ 21:51 GMT
Joe and Stefan,
"What do you see no matter in which direction you look? You see VISIBLE surface."Joe Fisher | That is appearance/how it looks.
I said "Joe, you only provide an explanation for appearance." that was not correct. As he said, he is not explaining anything. Not even how the appearance can be seen, as he denies the existence of all finite unseen things (in numerous posts all over the site).
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher replied on Aug. 26, 2018 @ 12:58 GMT
Dear Georgina,
I have not provided ANYTHING. NATURE provided one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. Please stop trying to substitute your concept of any object ever having a finite appearance. As surface am infinite, all appearance of surface am ETERNALLY infinite. Invisible finite quantum particles that could temporarily be in the same sort of multiple invisible positions at the same moment in time even though they are supposedly all travelling finitely slower than the imaginary finite constant speed of light have never existed.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher replied on Aug. 26, 2018 @ 13:11 GMT
Dear Georgina,
It am physically impossible for any finite event to ever take place. Although scientific researchers might collect a finite number of snowflakes to study, each snowflake will eventually be found to be unique, BUT all snowflake will always have pretty much the same surface appearance.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Lorraine Ford wrote on Aug. 26, 2018 @ 23:48 GMT
Re "Constructing a Theory of Life":
Physicists seem obsessed with irrelevant nonsense about multiverses and black holes, but isn't it time that physicists considered something a bit more relevant?:
Do life and living things make new information contributions to the universe or don't they?Seemingly they do, which means that physics has been barking up the wrong tree all along, when it comes to the nature of reality.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Aug. 26, 2018 @ 23:50 GMT
Re the previous post:
I've tried 3 times, but that last line keeps getting added to my post!!
I didn't put it there!!
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher replied on Aug. 27, 2018 @ 14:35 GMT
Dear Lorraine Ford,
Natural Visible Reality am not finitely theoretical. Natural Visible Reality am not finitely informational. Natural Visible Reality am not finitely mathematical. Please try to understand that the earth had a real VISIBLE surface for MILLIONS of years before any human theoretical finite misinformation spreaders ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface. This logically means that it was Nature that designed the only single structure of the real VISIBLE Universe allowable. There must have only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Anonymous wrote on Aug. 27, 2018 @ 14:45 GMT
Ms. Ford,
I would recommend you seek professional help. That "addline" is obviously from a library type assembler which probably cut and pasted some post of yours to format it into their own website page. Open source compilers that require no sort of credentialed qualification are full of worms bred by bad actors, and the naive whom mistake them as bonefide professional venues often fall prey to exploitation themselves and become a point affliction of contageon without knowing their own system has been corrupted. Such open source compiliers exist not for genuine purpose but are only a means of generating 'hits' to accumulate a quantity of metadata that is then put into play as an intangible asset to float some sort of psuedo stock option. The current crash of cryptocurrencies is typical of such 'intangibles markets', and governance is lagging way behind technology. You may have picked up some sort of bug that is playing back your files to some physhing databank through some neophytes use of an open source publishing or other generic field compiler. There is a cyber war going on.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Aug. 27, 2018 @ 23:03 GMT
I think it is clear that it is a "bug" in the FQXi system.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Aug. 27, 2018 @ 23:44 GMT
This seems to be the "bug" that has been added to the FQXi script (I've removed bits so it can be seen). It's up to FQXi to clean up their act:
a href="https://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=250" onmouseover="return addthis_open(this, '', 'http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3244#post_148428', 'In a comment on 'Constructing a Theory of Life', Lorraine Ford writes 'Re " constructing="" a="" theory="" of="" life": br="">Physicists seem obsessed...'')" onmouseout="addthis_close()" onclick="return addthis_sendto()"> img src="https://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif" alt="Bookmark and Share" style="border:0" width="125" height="16"> a>"
script type="text/javascript" src="https://s7.addthis.com/js/250/addthis_widget.js?pub=xa-
4a2d86f24c5ca30a"> /script
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Aug. 28, 2018 @ 00:25 GMT
I've informed Zeeya Merali about the bug.
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Aug. 28, 2018 @ 13:27 GMT
Ah! Now I think I realise why this has happened. In my rush, I quickly copied the article heading, inadvertently also copying the "+ SHARE" button. It is the script behind the "+ SHARE" button that caused the problem.
So: 1) FQXi should not allow the "+ SHARE" button to be copied; and 2) FQXi should strip any inappropriate script out of the text of posts.
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher replied on Aug. 28, 2018 @ 14:38 GMT
Dear Lorraine Ford,
The earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before you started copying any finite article containing finite malware and posted it in your irrelevent comment.
This logically means that it was Nature that designed the only single structure of the real VISIBLE Universe allowable. There must have only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Lorraine Ford replied on Aug. 29, 2018 @ 15:52 GMT
Zeeya Merali has informed me that the problem has apparently been fixed.
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Joe William Fisher wrote on Aug. 28, 2018 @ 20:34 GMT
Today, the Closer to Truth Facebook page featured yet another article about how researchers are experimentally seeking to disprove theories that could replace quantum theory.
Reality am not a theory.
I immediately posted this sublime comment:
The earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before Einstein ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his preposterous guesswork about how invisible quantum particles behaved.
This logically means that it was Nature that designed the only single structure of the real VISIBLE Universe allowable. There must have only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.
No part of VISIBLE infinite surface am mysterious. No part of VISIBLE infinite surface am entangled.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Aug. 29, 2018 @ 16:06 GMT
Today’s Closer to Truth Facebook page recommends visitors read an article, Theoretical Physics Is Pointless without Experimental Tests, published in Scientific American written by Abraham Loeb.
The article contains this absurd paragraph:
“Given our academic reward system of grades, promotions and prizes, we sometimes forget that physics is a learning experience about nature rather than an arena for demonstrating our intellectual power. As students of experience, we should be allowed to make mistakes and correct our prejudices.”
Nature does not have to be learned by humans. The real earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before any theoretical physicists ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing their senseless guesswork about finite invisible abstractions.
This logically means that it was Nature that designed the only single structure of the real VISIBLE Universe allowable. There must have only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. No part of VISIBLE infinite surface could ever be temporarily finitely experimental.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Joe William Fisher wrote on Aug. 31, 2018 @ 14:57 GMT
Yesterday’s Closer to Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar statement: “Scientific American has published another great piece by Harvard University astronomer and Closer to Truth contributor, Avi Loeb! This one discusses "experimental oddities that inspire a fresh perspective on nature."
Real VISIBLE Nature does not have any unnatural humanly contrived codswallop perspectives.
Real VISIBLE Nature has never had need of unnatural experimental “perspectives.” The real earth had a real VISIBLE surface for millions of years before any Professor Loeb ever appeared on that real VISIBLE surface and began publishing his unnatural pretentious guesswork about finite invisible abstractions.
This logically means that it was Nature that designed the only single structure of the real VISIBLE Universe allowable. There must have only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light. No part of VISIBLE infinite surface could ever be unnatural humanly devised temporarily finitely experimental.
I emailed Professor loeb and asked him to explain to me how I could be wrong about Natural VISIBLE reality. I have emailed about 60 Physics Professors and 140 Physics PhD Dr’s information about Natural VISIBLE Reality and not a one of them has ever replied.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Alex wrote on Nov. 21, 2018 @ 03:28 GMT
Another variant
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Pape
rs/View/7238
report post as inappropriate
Dr. Narayan Kumar Bhadra wrote on Feb. 6, 2019 @ 16:26 GMT
We study with a new conception beyond the standard model physics and about the formation of biological molecules/atoms. Our physical universe appeared by a continuous symmetry breaking of the new energy sources from ‘Big Rip’ Singularity[i.e. when space-time(here we consider the square of the Einstein’s real space & time of the physical unfolded universe i.e., -R2)is infinity in another phase] to the “Super Unified Gaussian Energy Group SU(11)”(that means considering the Revised Standard Model of Physics) then GUT the “Unified Gaussian Energy Group SU(5)”[i.e., the present Standard Model of Physics], i.e. in a “Particular Physical Universe” (called a narrower universe) [there may be created several type of particular “ Physical Universe” in the ocean(filled with new energy sources explained details in my previous articles) of the wider universe which infinitely largest].These class of symmetry group starting from Big-Rip singularity where energy pressure and density exists[it was shown in my article “The Complex Quantum and Classical Pseudo-Tachyonic Universe”, IOSR Journal of Mathematics (IOSR-JM) e-ISSN: 2278-5728,p-ISSN: 2319-765X, Volume 8, Issue 3 (Sep. - Oct. 2013), PP 15-32 www.iosrjournals.org)] and can be expressed mathematically(by using lie-algebra) as SU(5) SU (3) SU( 2) U(1); SU(11) SU (5) SU( 6) U(1); SU (23) SU (12) SU (11) U (1); SU (47) SU(24) SU (23) U (1); ...........so on.
report post as inappropriate
Dr. Narayan Kumar Bhadra wrote on Feb. 6, 2019 @ 16:31 GMT
FOR DETAILS PLEASE READ IN THE LINK BELOW
http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jap/pages/v11(1)Series
-1.html
report post as inappropriate
Dr. Narayan Kumar Bhadra wrote on Feb. 6, 2019 @ 16:33 GMT
OR READ
DOI: 10.9790/4861-1101011240
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny wrote on Feb. 7, 2019 @ 11:26 GMT
The spherisation of this universal sphere seems a logic conclusion,the quantum sphères are also logic like the real cosmological sphères.We are Inside a beautiful sphere in optimisation.In all Humility Feynman said this "One day we shall see allthe Truth and we shall say Oh My God but how is it possible that we have not seen a thing so simple before" They turn so they are these sphères at all scales….
report post as inappropriate
Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 7, 2019 @ 12:36 GMT
Symplectic varieties and the spheres…..Phases and periodic hamiltonians …..Lagrange helps us :)
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.