Physicist says he’s solved the big mystery — how life came from matter — and he may be right (via Raw Story )
The origin of life is basically inevitable from a mathematical standpoint, according to one physicist, and “should be as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill.” Jeremy England, an assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology…
19 comments:
I don't see the difference
just restating thermodynamics with different words
biologists, system theorists & other physicists have been saying this for decades
does a math equation differ from a logical or linguistic equation?
As Kuhn noted, scientific paradigms are not replaced when a theory is falsified but rather when preponderance of use shifts to a new way of interpreting data. Phlogiston and ether were not falsified as hypotheses, people just turned to explanations that were better suited.
What we are seeing a convergence on a model erases the gap between mind and matter, life and matter, consciousness and matter and posits one stuff that manifests with different appearances under different conditions. Complexity emerges from simplicity, and simplicity from unity, as Einstein sought to show but died before doing so. We still have to write the equations but that view is becoming more preponderant. This is verity different view from the Cartesian dualism that persists as the common sense point of view as cultural mindset. This is a big deal and will have far-reaching ramifications on culture.
Only once it's taught from K through 12.
How long's it been since John Law explained fiat currency?
I agree with Roger. It is no big deal. It does not explain consciousness, or even for that matter intent. So IMO "A mountain out of a molehill" using buzzwords to try and glorify something very simple.
See this is the part I have a hard time with:
"“A great way of dissipating more is to make more copies of yourself,” England said."
"make more copies of yourself..."
I just cant get past these types of statements as "scientific"...
ElArian who just got canned at PIMCO (who somehow lost money last year) when asked to explain the Fed's QE famously described as "a sugar high" rather than run through the accounting and show it has no real effect other than redistributing the characteristics of non-govt savings... so metaphoric words like this are a tip-off to me...
Here is Wittgenstein again: "[Philosophical problems] are, of course, not empirical problems; but they are solved through an insight into the workings of our language, and that in such a way that these workings are recognized -- despite an urge to misunderstand them. The problems are solved, not through the contribution of new knowledge, rather through the arrangement of things long familiar. Philosophy is a struggle against the bewitchment (Verhexung) of our understanding by the resources of our language. [Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Philosophical Investigations," 1953]
So someone may be reading this and not understanding/believing it but is going along with it anyway, THEN the guy says something metaphorical like "you just make a copy of yourself" and the "student" thinks "yeah..ok... that sounds logical" or something and ends up believing it!
Metaphors like this are always involved in keeping people in the dark...
I'm with Wittgenstein in that you have to really examine "the workings of our language"... "the resources of our language" in these matters...
We see this technique all the time in econ with the "govt is household", "money printing", "borrowing from China", "sugar high", "Fed pumping", "inflation", "debasing", "borrowing from grandchildren", "pump priming", "spending like Sailors", "black swan", "takes the punch bowl away", even straight jabberwocky with "gobbledegook" that has been thrown at Mike (TWICE! Once by former Reagan admin Jim Miller and once by CNBCs Kernan...)
So we have to be constantly on guard and aware of dubious explanatory metaphorical language like this and hopefully forcefully confront it immediately...
rsp,
Here's another one here:
England: "rocks rolling downhill..."
Rube: "Yeah I can understand that..."
Like:
Warren Mosler: "the govt can just credit a bank account..."
Becky Quick: "well I wish I could just do that with MY bank account...."
Same thing.
rsp,
There is an even bigger mistery here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr1dj3xLNhE&list=UULkGa0S8SfZ-4jScnlTqVOg&feature=c4-overview
David Puchta succeded in making scalar waves which he uses to produce gold. Just look at this video where monoatomic gold is antigravitational. A vile weighs 5 grams but with gold in it weigs 0.9 grams.
He is using scalar waves to produce biofuel from seawater, using just few watts, 8 watts per gallon.
Scalar waves are needed to start the life, scalar waves that come from the universe not just the Sun.
Recently he removed the video from youtube where he recorded how scalar waves created new lifeforms; worm that eats and poops gold and metalic ants that eat those worms.
Here is also a good one about George Merkel who used crystals to create chondria in human body. That video from microscope is really educational and like from sci-fi movie. Amasing things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ijjdqq0TGqI&list=UULkGa0S8SfZ-4jScnlTqVOg
There is also many things in his chanell worth watching. Absolutly everything is well worth watching. It might be confusing since he does not explain anything but..
Jure what is monoatomic gold?
Is that just one gold atom?
Does this form of gold have ALL of its D-bands full of electrons?
These D-bands are all full in the column 13 so-called "precious" metals (Au/Ag/Cu) that certain humans have manifestly exhibited an ability to "fall in love with" over all of human history... some of these people are STILL among us and in effect are polluting the human population or are like a "cancer" to the human system to bring a possible metaphor in here.
Do you know if anything unique is going on in the D-bands with this stuff? Trying to figure out scientifically how this "metal love" happens.... I'm thinking that somehow these metals transmit unique EM radiation and this cohort is susceptible to this radiated signal and we might have to make them wear metal helmets to help them out... like Magneto in the X-Men series wears the metal helmet....
We can send these helmets to Glen Beck and the Ron Paul people.... may help...
rsp,
Matt
Did you watch videos? Yes, single atom gold that creates antigravity.
No matter their crazy obsessions, look at their results.
These people around David Puchta were searching for eficient hydrogen production and stumbled upon these scalar waves. With scalar waves they succeded in getting very efficient hydrogen production and cold fusion proces.
Just recently they got this gold obsession thinking that it will give them powers.
Once he got to making gold, gold fever overtook him, but look what they achieved; 8watts for a gallon of biofuel out of seawater, cold fusion which they then used for creating any atom needed. Scalar waves are even creating life in water.
But just imagine the news that making gold is possible, all gold bugs would go mad at it and loose the fixation with gold backing money. What will hapen with gold trading?
These people that were mostly motivated by rightwing antitax obsessions and corporate control of energy are stumbling on major discoveries and working on licensing the production on mass scale.
They were crazy even before they stumbled upon this gold. But they have success in prooving the tetrahexadron, or I-Ching, or zero point energy, or Tesla, or energy-matter, or Freemasons knowledge, or sacred geometry right. They are alchemists of present day. And that can be very bad and very dangerous before it pays off. It will create chaos before it becomes a good for the earth and people.
The replacement of one cultural paradigm by another is often pretty messy. Look at what happened with the mythological paradigm being replaced by the intellectual and then the religious paradigm by the scientific. Socially, the tribal paradigm morphed into the nation state and the rural paradigm in to the unbar one. All these transitions were messy and some are still messy.
The scientific paradigm that began with Cartesian dualism has been morphing into a monistic one that combines ancient spirituality of perennial wisdom with the convergence of science on a unified explanation. This is being popularized in hokey ways like some of the flaky New Age stuff, but that's how it filters out into the popular mindset.
This is a big deal because the paradigm that rules the popular mindset is becoming more unified and universal, setting the stage for a globalism based on a more expanded level of collective consciousness that will produce more inclusive culture and institutions.
Reports of small studies like this are the drops that add up to the wave of a new cultural paradigm sweeping away the old one.
Matt: "“A great way of dissipating more is to make more copies of yourself,” England said."
"make more copies of yourself..."
I just cant get past these types of statements as "scientific"…
I'm not a biologist but cloning (self-reproduction) makes perfect sense to me as a corollary of Ilya Prigogene's work on dissipative systems that uses thermodynamics to account for "reverse entropy" that accounts for evolution of greater complexity in biological systems and for which Prigogene was award the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1977. Self-reproduction would seem to be the point at which life emerges as a more complex configuration of matter and dissipation of energy apparently explains it.
Materialists say that life is therefore an emergent property of matter, while idealist say that this only shows that as complexity increases, the potential of matter is progressively revealed as the potential of matter to know itself and act on itself reflexively.
Somewhat ironically, the energy (heat) dissipation that Prigogene uses to explain the apparent reverse entropy of increasing complexity in life forms (temporarily — no perpetual motion machines) is a flow made possible by the energy transformation and transference that takes place. Quite obviously, we take in nutrients, burn calories, excrete waste, and dissipate heat in the digestive process and convert oxygen to carbon dioxide in the respiratory process, also using energy and dissipating energy as heat. Apparently this guy's work shows how this would work formally at the primitive micro level where life first appears as self-reproduction. I any case, dissipation shows it’s an energy flow.
re "make more copies of yourself"
yeah, that's loose language that isn't very portable, but it's just another example of in-house, discipline-specific jargon
Most biologists hear that cells, organs & even whole creatures are duplicated when regulatory functions fail and allow something that normally stops to continue a duplicate developmental path
that's how one egg cell sometimes makes identical twins, and the most serious theory yet for how whole subregions of the CNS have diversified into the multiple, seemingly redundant sensory & other subregions of the CNS
e.g., older mammals in our lineage have only 1 or 2 "visual" cortices, while various primates have 5 or more different types of visual cortex areas, all pushed in side by side, with topographical (map) representations of the retina aligning at common map borders
Bit like someone on an assembly line getting a mixed signal, and producing 4 doors instead of 2 in a given model, or the same signal propagating down the line & producing 2x more cars/day than yesterday.
In that case, the precipitating signal disrupting regulation might be our long-sought Aggregate Demand, triggered, in turn, by a prior reduction in an imposed cost-of-coordination (i.e., reduced taxes)
despite the sloppy language, Matt, that's how stuff works;
the closer you look, you only see probability functions;
at some rate, every probability function will allow something to be doubled in a process flow, rather than remaining constrained
God forbid if economists employ sloppy semantics. :)
They wouldn't know it if they tripped over their own probability function and doubled the impact of their errors. They have a history of compounding just such events.
Describing convolution in complex systems, like economics or nature, is a bit tricky.
Tricky to predict but in after the fact, it's just "accounting" involving stocks and flows and observing consistency. (A basic principal of thermo is that flow is a one way vector in time — Humpty Dumpty.)
The epistemic issue is getting ahold of all the information, especially where a lot of it is "proprietary." Which is where statistical reasoning come it, to the degree sampling is available. This is where we find that there's a lot more we don't know than we know, and not all that much we can be absolutely sure of.
The future is ontologically uncertain as well as epistemically, and the past and present are epistemically unknown to the degree that we don't have all the data and also don't organize the data we have appropriately.
Psychological studies suggest that we give a lot more weight to "knowledge" than is warranted, owing to a need for security — which, of course, risks a false sense of security. See Wikipedia/ World View/Terror management theory.
A worldview is based on the security derived from a web of key paradigms. See, for instance, W. V. O. Quine's Web of Belief.
Roger,
If a 2 door chassis is coming down the line you cant put 4 doors on it.... there are no hinges for 4 there are only 2... and all of that is set up before hand by the IEs....
And if a digital comms system sends a "two" it cant "turn into a 4 on the way" those systems have bit checks, etc...
so these are not good metaphors...
If it truly is as "easy as a rock rolling down a hill" then I would think it could be easily demonstrated in a lab....
Can we stick to the science? Leave out the metaphors? Can we have a chemical equation for this? An experiment?
This is the same mistake the typical economists make imo.... all metaphor all the time... "sugar high", "inflation", "deflation", "invisible hand", etc... where is the science? This is not science this is linguistics....
rsp,
Matt,
Many of the key results we see around us are the result of such long term experiments that we can't fully test them in the life of our species, let alone our personal lifetimes.
And equations don't really help, since every equation ever developed fails to stand the test of newly discovered interdependencies.
So we check first, using simple analogies, to see if people are somewhat up to speed. Deeper discussion of all the releavant data we can find, requires more time, usually over a beer in some mtg place with real demo material or at least chalkboards.
Post a Comment