Leaderboard

I'm 61 years old and was born in Liverpool, England. As a child (perhaps 8 or 9) my mother saw an ad in a magazine to buy a set of children's encyclopedias, with this deal we got all the books at once and simply paid the small monthly fee until paid off, we were poor so this was not trivial. I was actually unwell the day these books arrived, I was lying under a blanket on a couch near our coal fire when she walked in and announced this purchase and carried in these two large heavy boxes, dumped them by the couch and left me to read, this was a life changing event for me and led to my interest in all matters technical and scientific. The books were these: Now long lost I still have very fond memories of sitting around our house on a quiet sunny day or winter evening, deeply immersed in these books. There was a structure that included history, religion, science, art and so on, also a fun section "Things to make and do" which also leaned in a science direction. Later as an adult I stumbled upon a complete set of these and bought them (52 weekly magazines stored in two binders): These were published in the 1930s, shortly before WW2 and would have been extremely interesting to me as a child, I still peruse these from time to time. The point of this post is to ask whether others here initially learned about science in this way and what do you think of todays options, do children still read books like this? are there magazines published like these? I have absolutely no idea how my learning experience would have gone had I had access to the web as we do today, I work in technology and use the internet heavily so I'm aware of its nature, I kind of think that it would not be as rich an experience as it was back then but this is inevitably subjective.

Perhaps there is some bit of relevance: the differences in the gold between two locations is dependent on stuff that isn't gold. The gold itself (the atoms of a given isotope) are identical I'm not even sure you could rule out life emerging more than once on earth. Abiogenesis happens, and then some cataclysm wipes it out before it can spread and take hold, and a thousand years later abiogenesis happens again. This could potentially have happened many times. None of the evidence would have survived.

Information cannot be created or destroyed; where did the rest of the universe's information come from ? So, not science either. Actually a thread hijack ... And nonsense unless you back it with evidence.

Nothing about this has been about "dissimilar natural process producing something the same" You claimed that "Nothing in nature is observered (sic) to happen again or twice ...have a look yourselves! " You said nothing about processes or results. But you keep returning to a particular, narrowly-defined example that doesn't happen, where nobody is surprised that it doesn't happen, or rarely happens. This is known as moving the goalposts, and it's a dishonest debating tactic. ... I remember someone I knew long ago that argued that evolution is false because a dog never gave birth to a cat. He thought that was a persuasive argument, when in fact it just showed how little he understood about evolution. I see a similar phenomenon happening here.

A similar path I had was a set of Time-Life books on science. We had a Grolier encyclopedia set, which was a prize contestants (my mom) got for appearing on Jeopardy!

At least you’re consistent with your prolific use of logical fallacies. This time it’s the No True Scotsman fallacy, I see.

No, invoking the 'supernatural' relinquishes all hope of ever understanding. But, we may someday understand how, or why, the universe has always been there. A valid quantum Gravity theory will get us much closer to knowing what happened in the first instants of time. And I really don't expect the equations to plot out the face of God.

A 'supernatural' solution guarantees we will never have answers to these questions. The 'always been there' solution holds out hope that, eventually, we might. The latter option seems scientific to me, the former, not so much.

Neither is suggesting a supernatural agent Except for, where did god come from?

Life exist in the universe, as I'm sure you'll agree. That tells me life is possible. Not really a big stretch of the imagination. Similarly stalagmites exist on Earth and while I have no evidence of them anywhere else in the universe, I'm convinced it is possible stalagmites exist elsewhere. I'm not sure why that seems so outlandish to you.

Er, well, I do have a degree in chemistry, in the course of which I learned a fair amount about chemical thermodynamics. So yeah I think I do have some understanding of the entropy of chemical systems, actually. I do not assume anything "appeared from thin air". A lot of work has been done on the likely origins of the various building blocks of life. (I've read a bit of it, but it's a fast-moving field and I don't pretend to have kept up with it all.) But you are flailing around so wildly now that it is impossible to discern what point you are really trying to make. The fact is that chemical reactions are repeatable. So your original argument that nothing in nature repeats itself is patently false. If you want to argue that life can't have arisen anywhere else, you will need a far better argument than hogwash like that.

There are many other possibilities for the emergence of "material quantities", whatever the definition of "material quantities" may be. You have not cared to define "material quantities" in any degree of precision. There may have been chaotic scenarios in which any clear-cut cause-and-effect sequence cannot be properly defined. There may be a limitless but finite causal structure for physical events, similar to the surface of a sphere, in which there is no point farther north of the north pole, while our intuitive grasp of reality demands to extend our framework of concepts "farther north". The example of hurricanes, that I proposed, was meant to illustrate that noticeable features may sometimes arise from a noisy background, without any particular macro or microscopic event serving as a valid cause of the whole thing. As to cosmology, current inflationary models do not suppose the pre-existence on any definite physical realm, although they use fundamental physical constants and, unfortunately, a number of free parameters. In those scenarios, there were just quantum fluctuations, which by their very definition are nothing like an atom, molecule or star; and there was also a simple mathematical function called the inflaton field. There wasn't even space time. That's part of the power of mathematical abstractions; they allow us to formulate less contingent scenarios than those you can conceive of with ordinary language. Even if at times they are somehow crude and leave something to be desired. Ordinary language is heavily constrained by the context in which it arose. Namely; to describe a world of rocks, and water, and fire, and plants, and animals. Concrete things. The very same things that --I can only surmise-- you perhaps mean by "material quantities". Quantum amplitudes, eg., just aren't material determinations in any sense that's familiar to us, evolved hunter-gatherers. They are beyond anything you, or I, or any human anywhere has a direct experience of. But the mathematics of them is clear, unambiguous, and useful --even though it's difficult to grasp--, and it leads to predictions about the material world --your material quantities, I suppose-- that has no parallel in anything philosophers and theologians may have concocted for centuries by sheer unassisted thought. Someone said that a philosopher is a person with a pen and a paper; while a scientist is a person with a pen, a paper, and a wastepaper basket. You really need a wastepaper basket for some of your ideas. I wasn't being facetious. I was dead serious when I said "I hope that helps". I still mean it. I hope that was clear. Is that any better?

I really do not understand why you keep repeating this falsehood: "lesser complex reactions are not observed to produce the same thing twice " They do produce the same thing, repeatedly. If they didn't, there would be no science of chemistry. Where do you get this silly nonsense from?

Further hard information available here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-57651025

deleted Why you feel the need to attack such a rhetorical turn of phrase which is intended to convey a bigger point in a stylish way is a sign of our times, suggesting facts no longer matter, only emotions.

To the OP, Andrew, Can you clearly define what you are arguing please. The title of the thread implies a question - Why Are We alone... You then state that nothing ever happens twice (as Swansont pointed out to you). You then move on to try and defend the argument that nothing is ever created identical to anything else. ??? Are you are arguing that there is no reason to believe abiogenisis could repeat elsewhere in the observable universe, and this is why we are alone? Assuming this to be the case, then my answer would be that, I don't personally believe anything. I think we don't yet know enough to make a judgement on abiogenisis either way. As far as I'm aware, we have not been successful in replicating (based our current data and understanding) abiogenisis in the lab experimentally using the basic chemicals and environmental conditions present around 4 billion years ago. However it appears that this is what happened here on Earth, so we are confident it has happened at least once (we are good evidence), given the right conditions there is no reason to believe it may not be possible to repeat elsewhere. How rare life emerging is, how often it may occur and how complex it may become are further arguments we can extrapolate from this original one.

There are now three concurrent threads that turn on the meaning of 'nothing'. This is after quite a few such debates here in the past. Not bad for a concept that "has no existence" I think we are generally agreed that and since we are having so much trouble with that definition I am offering an alternative approach as apposed to the getout of declaring it nonsense. @Conscious Energy has been trying to express nothing mathematically as 'zero' but does not seem to have the mathematical sophistication to do this. No offence meant CE. This approach, like most in mathematics, is best done in set theory and then we can employ the empty or null set. Beacuse mathematicians employ the null set to construct the numbers we get a hint of something we can do with nothing. This bring us to my spark plug and also my litre box, because we can quantify nothing mathematically. That is we can order different nothings as larger or smaller than each other. In some cases we can make actual measurements. In the case of the spark plug there could be simply air or there could be inert gas or there could be complete vacuum between the electrodes. The point is there is the 'spark plug gap' which is conceptually composed of nothing at all. And we can quantify this gap. Furthermore if they are actually touching there is nothing between them! Nothing is indeed a strange beast; as so often happens fact turns out stranger than our imagination (ie fiction), which is why we have (and probably always will have) so much yet to discover. 🙂

I think, after reading through this thread it appears that some are discussing different levels of nothing and what this means in the context of the situation. For example, Q. What does empty space contain? A. Nothing, its empty. Q. But empty space is full of, well... empty space A. Yes, but empty space is a state not a thing. Q. But space is a thing, it can be defined? So, you can easily see how the concept of "nothing" and what it actually means in context is as important as what we actually mean by nothing. In the trues sense of what nothing means is exactly what it describes - no thing, so anything that can be regarded as something, is by definition not nothing. (that was a mind twisting sentence). Doesn't matter whether its matter, energy or information if its describable as a thing then its not nothing. Then as we delve deeper into the semantics and contradictions associated with such. You could for example, consider nothing as a "state" but then this could be considered a contradiction, since a state is something, its a description. The way I personally try to conceptualise nothing in the true sense of the word, is to consider nothing as the absence of everything; space, time matter energy, information, consciousness, life, sprit, god, meaning, thought...

Anyone planning to build a school is designing it for people who are not born. What we have here is an example of religion crowding common sense out of someone's head.

His comment is uninformed. There is nothing in the spike protein mRNA that makes it vastly more stable, and the instability of mRNA is well known. It is fairly common to use surrogates for these type of studies. Even if it was much more stable, we would be looking at a couple more days at best, which, unless you are talking about mayflies rarely falls under the moniker of long-term effects. I just quickly calculated the total detectable lipid concentration, which dropped by that amount. So yes, it is cumulative for all organs. Again, it is based on how we generally metabolize lipids. As we are not getting continuous injections, what happens is that the total amount of lipids gets distributed and eventually eliminated. We also know which organs conduct much of the lipid metabolism so I am not sure why at this point we should all pretend not to understand how lipid metabolism works. Again, I think the basic thing that you and the twitter post seem to misunderstand is how compounds, including lipids get metabolized and eliminated. I am sure that if you look at ADME profiles, you will find something for those LNPs. Moreover, the post seems to be confused about how elimination studies are done. If you want to understand how it is eliminated from the body you would go and measure generally blood and liver values as well as identify those compound in waste (i.e. urine and feces). And guess what, that is what they did and how they estimate elimination rates (some other routine methods involve simple blood plasma analyses. Quickly screening lit has indicate that terminal terminal half life for ALC-0315 and ALC-0159 were ~3 and 8 days, respectively. It is not a hypothesis, it is how the liver works. It is how we metabolize things. What you propose is that for some reasons LNPs changes how our organs work. If the liver would simply accumulate harmful substances we would be all dead. A steady state also does not see-saw. If the compound was delivered at a steady rate the concentration would remain steady and then decline slowly as the compound is being eliminated. However drugs can be released in bursts or re-distributed unevenly (e.g. the compound can be released from other organs back into the bloodstream). The main source in this case is leakage from the injection site into the bloodstream. Again, not a hypothesis, there is huge body of literature out there showing how liposomes, LNPs and similar compounds pass through our body, get eliminated and/or can get modified to control said elimination. We should not assume that science collectively forgot how basic animal physiology works just because a random guy on twitter doesn't. Again, there are plenty of studies looking at mRNA as well as LNP degradation and metabolization, as well as basic liver functions. And I want to recall that one of the biggest challenges mRNA vaccines faced are the fact that those were eliminated too quickly to reliably create an immune response. Similarly, early LNPS were cleared too rapidly which added to the issue. Thus, much of the work surrounded stabilization of mRNA in vivo. So suddenly assuming that it is somehow very stable just goes against all the basic biochemistry we understand regarding those molecules. In addition, the whole molecule is not terribly stable outside of the body, either, which is why they require storage at low temps. I am not sure why you want to discuss tweets from a person who clearly has no expertise on that matter. Although it does not fall strictly into my area of expertise either, it is easy to see that the author of the tweet has not found it necessary to educate themselves on the subject matter before taking it to the social media (and yes, the irony is not entirely lost on me, considering my postings here). Take Gregoriadis and Neerjun (https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1432-1033.1974.tb03681.x) which is one of the early papers looking how one could control uptake and elimination. There are tons of advances to control elimination rate, tissue specificity and overall stability in the lit, with detail that goes far beyond my knowledge. So any argument that argues that something mysterious is happening here, is likely based on ignorance. So what I think you propose is that for some reasons the main organs for lipid metabolization (and subsequent elimination) will only be active for the first two days or so, then all residual LNPS would magically bypass these organs and mechanism, accumulate in ovaries and stay there forever? So instead on measuring well known excretion routes we should instead focus on something that a random twitter guy does not understand? I would advise you look for some reliable sources. I am not sure whether the person has an agenda or is just badly misinformed, but either way I would urge you to find someone better to follow as neither of us is going to learn anything by feeding trolls.

If you meant something different than what you said in the OP, just correct yourself. Don't dig the hole deeper.

Space?

I think this is clear based on the manifest whataboutism of the main argument. You see them as just creepy; I see them as an ancient lineage of animals that have been on this planet for hundreds of millions of years. So that's subjective. But in any case, how creepy something is should have no bearing on whether knowingly destroying it is justifiable. Phoenician tombs or Aztec monuments are creepy --they contain the rests of sacrificed people--, but they're invaluable; some people are creepy --e.g., people with bad hairpieces--, but they have the right to live, etc. As to the argument, I don't think this provides a solid basis for assessing whether an action is or is not justified or proportionate. It may be an argument for judging the degree of premeditation assuming the action has already been judged unethical, or unjustified, or disproportionate, or maybe just idle, on some other basis. It doesn't tell us anything about whether it's laudable or not. And pointing out that other actions are more culpable than the one we're defending doesn't make a good case. My personal opinion is that you should kill an animal only if it's a threat to your life, well being, etc. But maybe that's just me.

I'm now not at all sure what you are arguing. I think we can all agree that if life arises somewhere else in the universe it is very unlikely that it will be identical to the form it takes on Earth. So that seems to be exactly in line with this analogy of yours, about the composition of gold from two locations not being identical. The same geological process took place in both, leading to a gold deposit in the rock, but the outcome was sightly different between the two. However, in your opening post, you said something quite different, namely that you did not think "biology", or abiogenesis, could occur more than once. Now that is saying that the process can't occur more than once, not that the outcome would be different. And that makes no sense. There is every reason to suppose that a natural process that has occurred once will do so again, given suitable circumstances. If you just want to say that if life occurred elsewhere you would probably not see cows, bees and human beings, but some other kinds of creatures, with different biochemistry, we can all agree on that, I think.

Sure they are. And as such, fermions follow Fermi-Dirac statistics. Bosons follow Bose-Einstein statistics. Both of which require identical particles. This is the opposite of what was discussed, which was: same process, different outcomes. You are asking for identical outcomes. If I drop two masses off the tower of Pisa, they will both undergo the same gravitational acceleration, even as other forces may be present to give small differences in their velocities at any point. You seem to be conveniently ignoring the fact that your original framing did not ask for identical results. You said nothing happens again or twice. Gold being formed in California and again in Queensland (or vice-versa) is something that happened. You are now moving the goalposts, something that has also happened many times, particularly in arguments like this.

I respect life on all levels, and to me that means avoiding unnecessary killing. Insects can pose specific problems, and I'd have no qualms fumigating or getting rid of true pests, but if there's no need to kill those bugs, I don't do it. I especially wouldn't kill something to impress a person. That seems like animal behavior, something I try to rise above. I remember doing dumb things to impress women, but eventually I learned to appreciate the ones who liked learning about bugs rather than the ones who wanted me to kill them. I'm living right now with several bull snakes on the property. They're fascinating creatures, and we rarely see them when we're outside, but occasionally one gets startled and goes on defense. It hasn't happened to me yet, and it will probably scare the wee out of me (they emulate a rattlesnake when threatened, making their head flatter and hissing like a rattle). I'm OK with the occasional scare, but if one of them actually bites (non-venomous), he's going to be relocated with airborne prejudice. There's a park behind me that could use an aggressive snake. I don't hunt. I haven't fished for decades, and I NEVER fished catch-and-release. I killed and ate the fish instead. For anyone who thinks the bugs they step on don't matter, I highly recommend David Attenborough's A Life on Our Planet. It's his witness statement to the effect that biodiversity is what makes the Earth so unique and valuable, and anything you're doing to harm that is a crime.

I looked, and you're wrong, so this is a bad basis for your hypothesis. All electrons and positrons are identical. Many plants actually make clones of themselves (strawberries and potatoes are two of them). Many natural events and processes happen over and over the same way. They seem different because nature is always building on what is already there. Nature doesn't have to start from scratch every time. "You humans"? Did I choose the wrong thread?

When an eye doctor looks at your retina, he is looking through several different layers. The cornea is usually transparent, but it can have scarring or uneven curvature, making for a fuzzy view. The aqueous humor is a liquid that fills the front part of the eye, most always clear, but hi-pressure of this fluid ( due to poor drainage ) is the cause of glaucoma and loss of optic nerve function. The lens is next, and both the lens and its capsule can become cloudy. The capsule can be cleared with a YAG laser ( see Yag laser capsulotomy ), but once the lens becomes obscured, a condition known as cataracts, it is removed and replaced by an artificial lens ( one of the most common eye operations ). Between the back of the lens capsule and the retina is the gelatinous humor, which can sometimes be occluded by traces of blood due to trauma of the eyes. Most people have experienced these 'floaters', but sometimes excessive trauma to the blood vessels feeding the retina can dramatically increase their numbers. All of these conditions introduce screening that prevents the doctor from getting a clear view of the retina at the back of the eye. ( yes, I have glaucoma, had cataracts removed, and YAG laser capsulotomy )

! Moderator Note This is NOT the philosophy section. If you can't help, don't post.

Since a TASER doesn't use the Earth ground as part of its circuit, touching a metal pole while being hit by one will make no difference. If the TASER hits the pole: For one thing, the darts won't stick and would glance off, and even if they stuck, the circuit would be completed through the pole and not the person touching it, so they would not be effected by it.

That's kind of a wide open question. Which beliefs and assumptions of mine would you like to discuss?

This is like watching the Hindenburg Disaster.

I think you are missing the point of the slow ark. Great speed is not necessary. It is not as if the people who depart Earth will arrive at the destination no matter how fast you go. It is the future generations who will arrive. Not everyone is completely lacking in curiosity or would consider finding new life to be beneath one's dignity. I'm guessing you don't bother to interact with many people who have cognitive disabilities.

Hate to break it to you, but... "If any extraterestial life is in the solar system and yet they did not connect Us, it is because they do think we are not ready." ...is not an 'analogy'. It is an assertion that you cannot support. Then quit telling us what they are thinking, which is what you did when you said "...they do think we are not ready." I do understand your analogies. That is why I was able to call out your use of a straw man. You have to try harder if you want to succeed here. Digging in your heels when it is obvious to all that you cannot support your claims makes you look childish. Bullshit. Einstein could communicate with children, he just didn't try to teach them Relativity.

This is a simple question. Not an alert. But to answer you it depends on which government will apply it, and on who. Italy makes COVID-19 vaccine mandatory for all health workers Attitudes on voluntary and mandatory vaccination against COVID-19: Evidence from Germany England to make COVID-19 vaccinations compulsory for care workers COVID-19 and mandatory vaccination: Ethical considerations and caveats How a court ruling lays the ground for mandatory COVID-19 vaccination

As simple as that: The Guardian More than 75% of Australians support compulsory Covid vaccines for aged care staff But the OP is based on compulsory vaccination of all types of people too.

Well if it's not biolgy it's not biolgy it would just be something else...that assertion would allow you to claim any old chemical reaction life ....if it's not biology it's not life..you can not place biolgical traits on to a exterestial chemical reaction ...the trait of intellgence is often quoted which is a niche piece of biolgical evolution why not a digestive system or kidney....or giant goggely eyes on a green head It's not the same water as you couldn't have had the same heat or oxygen ...nice try ...sorry I took a while answering 👍🌍

You dont understand entropy...or you assume prebiotic chemicals and materials just appeared from thin air ... your deliberately ignoring the unique physical mechanics that placed the chemicals together the quantity of available materials ..... these are unreatable due to the fluidity or stability of the enviroment and time ...if other chemical reactions can form life where is it then ...as I said earlier the chemical reactions of Jupiter's atmosphere could be considered biology in that case or do we need to stick a leg on it first ...

I'm trying to answer as fast as I can ..but I have to repeat my argument to multiple replys ..it may not be mainstream but you know its built on stronger scientific hypothesis than your current understanding ..which I guess is why I'm experiencing hostility as well as a unusual amount of interest than some of the moderators posts nothing in what I claim can not be backed up by scientific fact ...besides I have answered every question I have relied too ..its just not the answer they want ....🦖 Yeah I do ....? There outcomes differ because there process can not be identical or the product that began its process...if nothing covers a wide range give an example of a dissimilar natural process producing something the same ..it should be easy !

It's easy....why would we expect life to happen on another planet again ..when nothing else in nature is observed to ...become twice ...happen again ...appear the same from different chemicals and causations ...its not hog wash it's a diamond bullet of reality to the forehead you can not answer it despite your training....not once have you asked how I draw my conclusions but just threw the same answered questions back at me ...or another question because you couldn't dismiss my point and if you seriously believe the possibilty of extraterrestrial life your going to need more than the hog wash of probability and possibilty .... Yes it has from the start ....?

Prove it then ..or at least give an example.....we have done atomic particles and compounds electrons and nuclei...rivers ..suns ..ecosystems .....none the same never been produced twice despite been logically easy than gas rock and metal into the first biology

Where do I get it from ....??? Okay name one then where is copper 2 or hippopotamus2 . Mars 2 sun2 precipitation 2 pangea 2 gold 2 our solar system 2 ...sulphuricacid2 ....however biology 2 is piece of cake ...I ask you ..name one process in nature that produces the same thing twice ...zilch ...zero..nowt but a 12 billion year old process will be the first !!!! your having a laugh ...

Yes I did ...that's the essence of the argument ...you can not produce either so it doesn't matter if you dont understand what are the phenomena then ....what have I have said that shows a lack of knowledge about chemistry evoulution or how science establishs current certaintys ....you haven't produced one example of anything happening the same twice or a dissimilar chemical reaction producing another same.. ....its not the goal posts shifting it's just theres two goals you need to get threw at either end of the argument ....and have made no suggestion why or how another chemical reaction has a requirement to resemble life or function that can be construed as life ...anything you place on it would be a biological trait .....like the example of eyes we call them eyes because we assume they are doing the same job ..when in fact they are just seperate evolved organs that exploit deviations of light that help interpretate the enviroment ...a bat uses the the area of the brain we use to taste to interpretate its returning echo location you could say it tastes sound threw its ears ..a octopus eye isnt a human eye or a blue bottles ...eyes (organs ) have happened twice but human or octopus eyes haven't..eyes haven't happened twice ....even the octopus can not produce the exact same eye ..which octopus and which eye would be the comparison.... You believe in the possibilty of extraterrestrial lifeforms when there is very little scientific evidence to its suggestion ...a hypothesis on the exsitence of faireys would hold more scientific basis of there suggested and possible exsitence.. Faireys where actually a small hairless primate that like flying squirrel developed a mebrane of skin that enabled them to glide from tree to tree there rareitey and eventual extinction before early zoology and its path into myth and folklore placed it into the realm of magic .....load of rubbish I KNOW but more scientifically plausible that ETL ...