foodchain

The aspect of QM you are talking about I think actually falls into the interpretations category in which if you want science has already I think as a community if not really for individuals directly involved in such have as I already have pointed out keep such with the label interpretation. See QM has I don’t know about a half dozen or more alive interpretations all with differing aspects which are little more they hypothetical builds really onto the existing theory. QM itself though in regards to mathematical apparatus has been and continues to be tested by very precise means and methods empirically which produces nothing but results that agree with it. Most everything in physics is based ultimately on math, so I don’t know how you can say this particular physics theory based on math is any better then another theory that is tested highly which is also based on math, I also do not think anyone who has influence on the issue such as people working at the LHC state that our current physics is the end all of required understanding…

Evolutionary science had been alive before Darwin who in education I guess mainly went on to be a geographer of some kind? As it was back then you had a lot of modern scientific theory not existing in such a states but was more hypothetical such as with geology, physics and so on all were not in todays modern forms by any means. In natural selection by Darwin no supernatural force or entity is required to explain the diversity and evolutionary history of life. Genetics was not as it is but such thinking about such a unit was not absent by any means in such. Darwin eventually I think became an agnostic which I think resembles in much of the theory as it to me only attempts to explain via some physical process something physical. It has sense become a dominant aspect of biology simply because the science of such only continues to support it. I think it makes up that basic concept of what operates on variation over time with reproduction really, in that you find I think genetics at the base, with more molecular stuff on up in complexity to ecological scale stuff, in all of it though natural selection can hold via what science discovers such as genes and genomes. So again it works as modern theory because I guess it naturally can in connection with science. If natural selection were wrong, I would think continued complex biological study of such would discover this. For it to function in every field of biological inquiry and even be able to bridge all of those in a coherent whole, I just do not know how it can still be doubted so easily. It again works because it puts forward a physical process to explain a physical process that can be falsified by means of science. By accepting evolution via natural selection you then are agreeing to how it works, which does not require again anything supernatural. I also think origin of life is talked about by Darwin in conjuncture with basically a prebiotic organic soup. I also think that if the natural selection was proposed to be some form of intelligent design or creationism I think such a statement lacks as natural selection itself not only then but in a modern sense never called or calls for anything supernatural.

I don’t really know on the topic of how to make some metabolism that would support detergent no longer being a household product. I do know that of course water systems are connected in many places via sewers or some form of plumbing. So you also I think tend to deal with that whole idea of even how to make say a washing machine something of a dead end for whatever microbe to move in or out of. You would also I think tend to deal with free detergent generating populations of such and who knows what. I think if you made something that produced a film or some kind of social behavior possibly that you could try to support such dying during a drying cycle though.

Here is some stuff. I have gone camping before in my life. One night I was spooked and of course when I heard something I performed a throw with a rock projectile for no real good reason I could think of. I think it was Bigfoot though, and on to a different point I honestly believe I have witnessed a UFO. No seriously, it appeared just like a human made satellite in the sky, then it speed up and had a trail like in star trek, the trail looked similar to a electronic heartbeat logo you might see for some crime drama. Anyways big foot would have to be damn good to leave nothing behind for evidence in however long its existed in natural history, unless you do favor shoddy evidence like footprints that in every case I know off have been disproved by experts as false or improvised.

If you randomly spun some large vat of microbial life in some fluid once every thirty minutes do you think in some span of time this would register with how the microbes are behaving? I mean could this random spin in a liquid vat in time become enough alone to register in say gene selection even? I mean if you could manage to make a washing machine a habitable environment for some microbe that could replace detergent this would be beneficial somehow I think?

I would think both? I just on my own reading various papers you always deal with structure or the mechanics of a compounds structure such as a protein. Well with say the behavior of bacteria if you wanted to study patterns of gene expression for some population that would also mean being able to understand the molecular basis in regards to the bacteria’s physiology right? So I just wonder if you actually need to understand the material in physical chemistry in order to actually identify a protein or a gene.

Do you think physical chemistry is important to molecular biology? I think organic chemistry and biochemistry is important for such but I am thinking physical chemistry would also be helpful. Would that be enough education in say chemistry to study molecular issues in the life sciences like microbe ecology? Such as if you wanted to be able to independently study bioremediation via microbe behavior what education in chemistry would be sufficient?

I think that nonpartisanship offers more of a benefit when it comes down to use of time and resources. I personally would not like to work somewhere under the constant influence of a managerial struggle for open positions, in that sense I could not agree with turning political things into more or less some constant territorial dispute. Yet I think such a condition is to contemporary to change all to quickly, more so that such is forefront in many ways when it comes to voting, such as being a red or blue state sadly due to the electoral system going over the individual in some social context. I think during the crisis of war for instance everything involved with the politics of such times would have benefited if politics was not so concerned with fighting amongst itself. I mean you can vote for various people to be senators in congress and vote for presidents but after that you deal with the politics of such for an extended period of time really barring huge legal issues, massive civil unrest or other such acts. I think this is important because our current government has such a low approval rating and under such distress could adversarial behavior amongst politicians itself have a huge impact on decision making? Such as politicians of different political groups then becoming compelled to act in part or have motivation to act on behavior benefiting of that group? I think such would only serve really to undermine political behavior that is purely beneficial to say the nation.

I don’t know but I don’t think that can support why quantum interference would occur. I think refraction also shows it being a physical process and of course the fact chemical reactions can emit photons or absorb them this would suggest say hydrogen in space absorbing some amount of photons I think from some point of origin. I think a neat question is if the speed of light is constant in a vacuum does it give an appearance of curvature due to gravity to a precision limited by such physical properties? Being this would change in time because of other forces such as gravity spacetime then would be just the curvature of things due to gravity as shown by how photons behave interacting with such. So if it were I guess a quantum field effect(plz correct me if wrong) light and gravity would be some interference pattern?

Pi by itself though is not just a number, it’s a product of mathematics. I mean you can do an equation and graph it that does not provide some min and max that is finite, you can get infinite also. So why pi may be in whatever is the best current approximation, again its not as if its just a number by itself. So if math has to derive a circle or a sphere in some equation, it might be the nature of math itself that is giving the result. Such as I think this may be why irrationals numbers exist and don’t only take the form of pi.

Censored realities are neat, just kidding. I can see if its something starting a flame war, but hey don’t gag me or anything for saying that.

Tell that to Venus. CO2 traps heat or energy from the sun. Increasing the amount in terms of ppm in the atmosphere is going to do just that. It might not be as bad now, but lack of change will only increase CO2 concentration, what will be the impact of 1000+ ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, do you desire this, how do we move away from that? Land is being destroyed that supports currently natural ecosystems such as the rain forest at a constant and growing pace, this is same for most the world, so I don’t think planting trees is going to equal loss, unless we hope that corn fields will do the trick. Plus I dont want a corn field carbon cycle, that just sounds scary. Bottom line is natural ecosystems support life on earth, that also includes us. We don’t have the ability nor the resources to replace this and I doubt we ever will.

Yes and we even got to watch a video! Point being is far more then that has been understood by fields such as neuropsychology which on a regular at a hospital might be used to try to help someone who has had brain trauma from say a car accident. What I mean by moral subjectivity is simply that, if morality was absolute at a biological level such would be evident? I mean what is the morality of a lamprey, it’s a lamprey, it behaves like a lamprey and does lamprey things, this is a far cry of difference from say the blue man group or simply playing with a yo-yo though both are ultimately based on the ability of a organism to behave in such a way. I am not equating say the ability to feel “anger” with morality, or flight or fight. I am talking about morality in common convention such as either being pro-life or pro-choice, there is no absolute moral answer to such a question is there? I mean fear is biologically hardwired into the brain, into many brains of many different types of organisms, yet what can cause fear is not absolute, I am scared to death of hights to an irrational level, yet some people can sky dive… TO say morality is absolute you must define what you mean? Personally I do not think human morality for all that it is can be defined to such a precision past a possible behavior of an organism that is supported ultimately by its biology, much like a computer being able to run differing operating systems or files. Again I would just like to use the language example. A homo sapien has biological facilities for language, it can use human language but is not limited to just one language. Even if Stephen Pinker is right about language and the brain it still does not impose a simple absolute unchanging single language a human being can develop to use therefore its not absolute. I mean here is an example, if you were locked in a room and the only way out was to kill say ten people with a blunt axe would you do it or die? What morality would judge your actions and what morality would judge the ultimate variance in such response? Do you think 100% of everyone would say you were right or wrong for any decision you made? How can you say its absolute? That’s like saying modern American morality such as the U.S constitution is intrinsically coded in our DNA or RNA or some patriotic spliceosome, it just does not add up to me, I also for that matter disagree that microwave over construction techniques are somehow coded into our DNA or the fact that our DNA up to our brain and whole organ systems somehow make people predisposed to like GZA’s lyrical style.

I have no idea. Morality is subjective, as in I don’t think you can find some absolute standard morality for all human culture, more so in time. I would also like to suggest that you cant really trace fully the evolution of morality as I don’t know if it leaves fossils per say, plus the cultural primitive was never found or had been "evolved" over. I don’t really know what you can segregate into morality, I mean is morality something individual, is it group based, is it from a single family all the way up to say a dynasty? You cant forget that are evolutionary history more so in close proximity is from a social organism. The question you ask has serious requirements to understand the human being not only at the individual level, but all the way up of course to a population level. Being morality as is seems to be a more prominent issue at a social level I would say that evolution of such probably does not have to be something strictly inherent to our genome. What I mean by this is somewhat simple I think, if you take language the ability for a human to use what would be called human language such as English or Spanish is rooted biologically, but the exact form of such obviously is not guaranteed in every detail, such as at birth a human could only develop to speak say one particular language. Also people can get angry at things other people could find amusing, so ultimately you deal with a lot of plasticity with such an issue. So in closing my best guess which pretty much goes along with this thread I would think is such shares in not only our nature, such as biologically being a homo sapien, but the nurture that is found in such. I mean for the life of me I cant understand how country music continues to survive. Also for what its worth I could not see anything moral in making some particular version of it absolute to the point in which all other life different from such should perish, how could that be moral?

Just that the math would have to physically show each individual facet of how the information traveled if it did indeed travel. As such if it were occurring faster then light, I don’t know exactly what that math would look like. I don’t mean in a highly linear sense of a line from point A to B or an obit in the sense of how a planet orbits. If Planck units are truly fundamental to quantum mechanics you can view the electron as a certain amount of energy right? As in it has to come in quanta, and that its movement in say an atomic shell is at least constrained by such right? My question then becomes somewhat I think in line with your topic if you can then replace the idea of observation itself with entanglement? Such as is entanglement of the quanta in say a star stronger within the star then say any orbiting body? Would spooky action at a distance be constrained by any form of locality? I mean entanglement can be shown to occur between separated things in which the concept of FTL arises, such as measurement of spin on one particle can cause measurement of another particle to change or have some property in relation to observation of the first particle. I always get confused with QM because its stated to explain aspects of how the physical world actually behaves. With that it is to be probabilistic and random in every sense. Yet a basic study of QM is the interaction of light with matter. I would tend to think this physical reality holds impact on say vision in an organism. Yet I can sit at my computer and do things that requires sight that produces some kind of coherent information. I would think giving the model picture of QM that reality should really look like static on the television, yet it does not appear that way. Would this even be remotely suggestive of anything at all? I mean could a possible question be how does the brain plug quantum behavior such as photons hitting the eyeball into conscious thought?

Would solving that have to show for how the information is transferred? Trying to avoid a word trap, entangled states are responsible for the spooky action at a distance stuff, so I would think to show how this information “traveled” would then mean that particle has that much information in it? Such as using FTL to send a perfect message from controlled point A to controlled point B? As a possible rewording or example, if say a subatomic particle had to occupy space in an atomic shell, would the movement or field or whatever the electron of such then be somewhat like FTL? THis would still have to resemble time in some fashion though right? Else if this was a natural phenomena I don’t again see how QM could produce the classical physics stuff. Not trying to block your way to an answer, I honesty don’t have it:D

You study natural selection and evolution in regards to most anything I think that deals with biology one way or another. A big impact I think natural selection has in one particular field of biology is ecology. Its not rare to find a college level ecology class and evolution class merged together as one. Also for what its worth natural selection is just that. So for how natural selection made it possible for a specie to find its way to committing genocide or making war, it also makes sea sponges. Also its not as if it makes it, just under a natural environment abotic and biotic variables hold impact on say a particular organism. So a specie might over variation in time become suited for say an aquatic environment, such as a shark, but you cant just take a shark and say put it on land, if that makes any sense. The proposition that natural selection was devised to enable brutality is simply stupid, "brutality" existed far before natural selection and or evolution was ever muttered. A simple example would be that modern industrial human life is being naturally selected against, so no, natural selection is not biased in such a sense, but people can be.

Yes but at the base you would never say this about anything like your life I am sure and plus I would think being social I am sure a female would freak out if I had to bust out a calculator before we talked. That being said I get your point about such in relation to science but I think most the posts fail to resolve the issue that what’s being posted is more or less something human or could even fall under psychology or anthropology or some other science as something human, such as the ability to make associations like fire engine red. If Dawkins is correct on explaining technology as a product of biology, such as genes and opposable thumbs then ultimately everything human I would think has to share in some extent of being human, like being wrong, with math on some exam for instance. Framing math the way you do basically denies that anything outside of it could never be considered factual, furthermore as is if math is something outside of humanity, something divine even. I don’t think Darwin framed evolution as a differential equation initially, I might be wrong, but his "idea" certainly seemed to be able to shed light on things.

Sorry about the confusion. I guess you could leave out the primordial part of the question, but in essence I think it relates. Basically, with the use of fitness landscapes and variation would you say eukaryotes evolved to what they from drift? I mean in context of evolution to a eukaryote from say the being archaea or eubacteria. I mean going from phylogeny you have species that eukaryotes evolved from right? Well I would think that maybe endosymbiosis could be viewed in an idea maybe as something that is evidence of say that evolution? Such as the appearance of true multicellular life?

Primordial life such as archaea or bacteria are held to be older the eukaryotes. Basically going from autotrophic species of such in relationship to phylogeny and selection I think it would be selection that produced autotrophic microbes then, or that the species is fit for its environment. With variation though and populations of such microbes could eukaryotic evolution as in conjunction with say endosymbiosis pretty much put up a far different fitness landscape? Such as could the physiology of eukaryotes be supported by such organisms being able to move into different trophic systems. Eukaryotes are highly diversified but are a success in major or a major difference is being multicellular. So my question becomes if it’s the presence of life, with say prokaryotes, that allowed for a different selection criteria.

Actually modern homo sapien could survive a return to the wild I would think. If you mean via environmental ruin on global scale some post cataclysmic event type world, I would still think people to exist. I think what would occur though would be a stronger form of selection in various ways, such as obtaining water and food, being mass industry would have collapsed I think most basic facets of life for say America or Europe or most of the world would cease in some way. So a huge genetic bottleneck? I think a worse case scenario is when pollution on a global scale brings about some kind of LD50 event on the human race, it’s a possible horror so I don’t think it should be ignored. Just going from conservation of energy alone common sense should dictate that our behavior would hold to some extent or some way an impact.

I would question how much such a safeguard exists really because one it only makes sense to use such and another avenue is it probably works better with economics overall. I would think with more advances in molecular and cellular biology that more accurate drugs could come about, I wonder do you think that models of such systems outside of a whole organism could work? Such as if you could just have certain tissues or organs cloned to work with, do you think such could come to replace live organisms such as a lab rat? I would thinks economics sort of bars such really though.

Yes but a single organism even a microbe is just not a exothermic reaction as a result of hydrogen bonding, you have a lot of variance not to mention cycles with layers of complexity and so on. Here is a thing, hydrogen peroxide, why is that rather harmful to living things? Its just hydrogen and oxygen, but it also does not seem to equate into something healthy really. Plus anaerobes exist, so again you deal with some level of confliction not to mention you could easily say this about carbon, or heck iron. I think this shares in thinking DNA is the key to life when you really cant disqualify such a statement currently, such as life has to have DNA in order to exist, life in the case of a virus does not even need to be a cell in order to live or at least be biological phenomena. I think origin of life questions are rather complex. Following phylogenic relationships at some point you reach the autotrophic layer which happens to also include the oldest species on earth. I think if you look at the life history of such autotrophic organisms tend to deal with chemical energy or sunlight. I think the fixers are also older then the photosynthetic species which I also think this is regular fact. Going from what I know about chemistry something must have been initiating these reactions, at least at the extent the environment maintained enough energy such as thermal energy to keep the reaction process going. I think if evidence could mount for say thermophiles being the oldest of the prokaryotes you could have a possible candidate for study, then again this is my biased opinion.

I know uni-solar produces a neat and flexible solar panel that is shade tolerant or can still function and is made general to be placed on specific types of roof. I am still looking into tefzel and I find it hard to get much other information on what the product is made out of. Its to be a very long lasting item though, so massive and constant production should not be as large an issue. Geodesic dome homes are a tickly option also, as some can be rather tricky to think about. One case in particular is the fact that such buildings can be rather efficient, in fact in many cases that can simply dominate this category when compared to other types of homes. I would think with how such buildings are designed that you could completely encase large portions of it in a flexible solar panel. The more tricky part of this is the insulation scheme in which you can find some things to take issue with. Though this depends I think if you want your dome home to be built of concrete or something else. The concrete ones supposedly can take class five storms or what not like hurricanes and stay structurally sound. Then again concrete production is a large source of CO2. If you can get enough juice compared to lifestyle like you are saying then I think it could also power your cars. The amount of money that would be saved is a good amount, plus if you don’t use all the electricity you generate I think the power company has to purchase such from you.

I think its because of the math, for instance you can do the math with chemistry that leaves you with having a half a proton or something like that, of course its not right but its just an example. Here is another one, if you take any string of numbers like say 123 when you add them up like 1+2+3 you get 6. If you do this with the number 122 you get five, and so on and so fourth. I think this is due to it being base ten or something right?