foodchain

I agree with you. Going from the above on the subject the only way you can conclude anything about life is simply from the study of it. So thusly it would seem to understand issues like evolution down to the daily grind of a species would require a vast amount of ecological understanding in total speak on really, and thusly you find that draws down to even a molecular level, so you would have to have I guess then the molecular basis of life needing to be solved for as it would relate to daily behavior of a species from an individual and on up scope of detail. I just don’t think such exists right now fully to use in definition in conjunction to the ability to speak on if embryos are human over environmental impact.

What I found interesting is that the double slit experiment I think was run using a fluorinated buckyball, something like C60F40 or what not. That’s a pretty large molecule, far larger then an electron. I think that quantum aspect is being discovered on larger and larger basis but that’s beside the point. I think envariance among other things is being used on a quantum scale not only to model but evolve materials with desired properties and of course combat the ever growing reality that computers using modern technology are running into various problems on a quantum level using standard digital logic or what not, hardware. So the evaluation of the problem has lead to the desire to create QM based hardware like dots for example in which quantum environments are used as computational systems. The ability to control this environment is paramount to the system functioning in which you find all kinds of tactics being employed, such as doping. I am particularly fond now of quantum dots as I have viewed some modeled structures of such in which what grew actually looks physically something like a plant or a flower in my opinion, kind of neat. I think the most interesting aspect of all of this is that envariance could be used to model say waves of matter or what not geologically speaking during the formation of life on earth. Such as looking at geological process possibly as some kind of a vacuum effect or the concept behind heat death. One possible scenario I envision is the basic chemistry of life possibly trapped in some layer at a certain time in which stability is produced by life coming about to process energy to the various stable forms or measurements. I don’t know exactly if it has any validity in reality but to me its an interesting question. I wake up sometimes in some stupor in which I am dreaming about this stuff:D its practically addictive. Of course I think my “idea” runs into conceptual problems with probabilities and outcomes but I think envariance or the ability to model such an environment from a QM perspective would detail to the most critical levels possible of physical information as such is paramount in all aspects of natural reality.

Even going by your numbers that does not equate into taking to long for warming to occur. Molecular concentration in the atmosphere does not require that a specific concentration need be huge to register an impact. To add to this the atmosphere is composed of various layers, and the atmosphere of course interacts with other systems such as the biosphere as evidenced with plant life and any vital metabolic pathway they have. Production of greenhouse gas is something building up also, in the ppm count. So the history is additive overall currently. In that the numbers continue to grow, so in twenty more years the count could be double, which I think means its own specific effect. So if the truth of the matter is that GHG is increasing in time while persisting in time, that means eventually global change in various ways, abruptly speaking also when considering the various clocks such as geological or biological.

What is the CO2 driver. The argument is skipping this aspect and going straight to the sun. CO2 is also widely recognized as true as a greenhouse gas in which since the industrial revolution has been steadily increasing. I do not know of any other variable to drive this currently save for human behavior in which its linked. So if human behavior continues to increase concentration of a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere the result will be what?

Yes but on a biological level other species also have biological reasons to be considered conscious. This also I think fails to grasp the question at hand as it still completely ignores the looming possible reality that we as a specie also conduct life instinctually, like every other living thing. I mean are we a few compounds away from being something utterly different? Physically, biologically, do we know humans as a specie have instinct or nature free behavior, from an individual level, to a cultural one and even globally.

How do humans truly know they are conscious? I mean you can look at various other animals and watch them going about being animals of a type and say hey its a zebrafish or its just a turtle, its does turtle things, it has turtle thoughts. So how do we know really that we just don’t do human things, only see human things and generally also just be an animal? I mean it may sound like an odd question but I have always thought about it. How do we know we are truly some sentient all conscious being? How do we know for sure we live outside of biologic influence in regards to thought and behavior? It would seem that the existence of the brain provides the basis for a more organic view of life or human life that is, yet we look at the rest of life for the most part as separate from us. I think this is one of the reasons really. We see ourselves as something truly different in many regards, and I question most all of those. I think environmental damage shows really humans are just like other things that are trying to survive. I think the most scary aspect of this is that instinct is not known. Any nature we have is not truly known then, even while language exists. The way I am framing this question puts cultural behavior or culture as instinct with the ability of being an ESS or an evolutionary stable strategy. Obviously the success of a specie is tied to the environment, so is its failure. So culture was something that has shown fitness. I am postulating this based really on conjecture but I would just like to hear others thoughts on it. I know it claims people to be social, but I would think language on its own can support such a reality from an evolutionary perspective.

Last time I checked vision is a quantum thingy and general chemistry class does not consist of growing plants from scratch. I do dislike it when people say life is chemistry. The planet is also chemistry and so are stars, yet we don’t say they are living things which made survival of the fittest a reality environmentally speaking on a quantum level. Its all physical reality but really just saying life is chemistry is kind of bunk to a certain extent, being we don’t extend the definition to everything chemical. Does god exist, last time I checked that which is supernatural is exactly just that and we as a specie happen to occupy a natural level of reality in which that type of stuff exists. I also know that pirate population density is intimately involved with global climate change.

What I don’t get is the reality that science does indeed know that humans are indeed changing the environment in a multitude of ways. Now most of these systems are critical in regards to supporting life as we know. Ultimately changing these variables in time is going to change the environment. To coincide with any major change in the environment historically speaking has always lead to mass extinctions as far as I know of. So maybe its simply the reality that large scale ecological change is lethal to life because life is entangled with such in the form of natural selection/evolution. So with an ever growing source of change which is human population density/behavior/technology concentration and use only continues to be that in time it means just that much more change. Yet this change is rather rapid in some ways. It might not seem rapid to an individual lifetime as much as its rapid in being just a few hundred year global change. More and more studies coming from peer reviewed sources currently held as sound by the powers that be are supporting the reality of global climate change. The atmosphere is absolutely vital to life, and in changing this to any large extent certainly cannot be beneficial. Even in light that current consensus on global warming is not 100% absolute down to the scale of being able to predict where and for how long it will rain does not mean what we are learning should simply be ignored. Realistically its like playing Russian roulette but with only one empty chamber. I do not see what could truly lend itself as support to make such a decision as to play that a game. See. I don’t need everything really to be absolute down to the entropy of a few atom system light years away. What I need to know is if humans can and are changing the environmental globally, and the current answer to that is yes but we should have known that from the simple aspect of CFCs and the ozone layer to species going extinct.

I am still getting educated for the research I would like to do. You should have made this a poll in my opinion for such reasons.

I just do not understand how the species would persist being so scarce if it did. I would think it would have to be scarce if indeed it did exist simply because most anything we have to support it is not only debunked in many ways as being hoax but we don’t really have anything at all. Plus the real lack of any sightings on a scale I think would exist in some way if bigfoot did indeed exist. If it did survive being the general type of organism that it is, what kind of a population density could it survive with? I think if you dealt with very small pockets like even a small family you would be running into various kinds of reproductive issues eventually, then again I don’t know all the various adaptations for such that exist. I mean with even somewhat a constant human presence in some scale even in places like the earths poles remote wilderness is really not all that remote anymore.

Is there any strong sets of chemical data available on any attempts to experiment or recreate say compositional differences with the existing layers of the atmosphere? I don’t want to look at say the evolution of its various layers just more or less differences with them as they existed in time together. *Physically speaking can you ignore the history of a system? TO what extent in regards to say this question. I just want to ignore I guess the “time-evolution” of the atmosphere to certain bounds in its past, how do I subtract out the history? This question is purely bonus.

I really don’t think any of the math would do it. I am not saying math could not work here ever, just that I don’t really think we can plug the reality of it all into various equations yet, to any significant extent. Remember, what we are looking for is life as we know it. Even if life as we know it were similar to some extent on an alien environment, life as we know it surely points to what that can on its own mean. Also with life as we know it as the only viable option in which to think about in regards to such a question past purely wild speculation ultimately, we are left with something smaller then Planck could make a measurement for, which I think is zero or undefined. Simply put artificial bounds have to be placed on the definition of life. Maybe life exists rather commonly, but its all some kind of microbe in its host environments. I don’t think it hurts to try to look, but really my best estimate is the first alien life say humans openly discover will probably not be anything we thought it would be really. Its either that or taking truly on blind faith that you have to have say DNA for life to occur for instance. Last talking point is that hard science is making progress is creating life from scratch, but really we cant do it yet. At least not to having say a prokaryote for instance at least. I think this would have to be solved for earth, the arising of life that is, before we could really venture into life on other planets.

Well I don’t know anything for sure, most all of this is rather new to me. Right now in my free time I am reading up on superconductivity. I read an interesting paper on arvix about decoherence, or the use of such after two decades of existence. Its made some really good progress is what I generally understood from it. I like the idea of a pointer, but I got confused as to exactly what the pointer was. My ideas on the subject where pointers are an observed point value, or particle? What I think is scary is that relativistic wave equations exist. To what extent in those due you apply as an environment? Basically where can you denote the extent of a field? More so with issues like entanglement. Like I said a lot of this is really new to me.

My opinion is that QM might also have convergent histories. So if you were at a specific history you might be able to view so much, but over differentiation you can find more and more a discrete nature to individual parts. Decoherence using environment as a witness or I guess what is doing the measuring? So the question to me is if you can use decoherence to obtain a convergence. For instance when looking at any particular geological structure, like hand size rocks. I would imagine that at some point those atoms or molecules might have been in a liquid state. So phase wise what allowed for each individual chunk eventually end up where its at state wise currently, such as geometry.

I have to guess that without knowing the limits on what physically constitutes life truly that making such an estimate takes on even more estimates. If quantum computing is made standard I would think for the whole of understanding and technology to change, this can means a variety of things more so in the context of looking at the impacts say the electron microscope has had for instance. There will be just that much more and faster processing power for any application that can come to use it, this would mean modeling things like metabolic pathways. Taking into account the environment variable in biology such as adaptation synthetic biology all on its own stands to benefit greatly, I would say nanotechnolgy also. I mean if you could come to have real time image a living cell over its life cycle from a QM perspective should reveal so much it will probably be blinding really. The fun some people get to have in life... On the other hand again not knowing the physical forms life can obtain, or only currently having the evolution of such on earth to follow from in terms of a guideline I think such estimates cant really be taken past being just estimates. I mean on some planet life could exist technically but only by pure extension of what life is, the thing might not even have cells, or dna or even be mostly organic. I think in reality to say otherwise can only be based on the limits of what we know, and nothing more. I would also big to think that humans could also come to a point in understanding in which environments of various scale could simply be engineered and or constructed. That might be thinking big but I don’t see it as something impossible for all time.

My question is basically on the reality of quantum systems in an environmental tone looking at time in relation to the uncertainty principal in relation to supposed wave function collapse. Now to my understanding you can have time dependent and time independent equations to use. I imagine when you say time operator you are referring to use of the time operator? I am basically wondering then if the image of wave function collapse really is sort of the arrow of time then. Of course you have to deal with the idea that quantum systems are or can be modeled to my understanding as a system of aggregate systems, much like an environment of various ecosystems. So how do you model quantum interaction in context of time, going from a natural environment such as rainfall.

Does decoherence use environment in wave functions to produce point values? I am reading up on this subject currently and from the basis of einselection I guess is the mechanism that leads to the classical world or such phenomena. The of course you have the field of complex systems I think trying to describe emergent behavior. What I don’t understand about the emergent behavior aspect is that what has emerged is to be somewhat a discrete unit to itself. Such as in the wiki article on emergent systems and or behavior, don’t recall exactly, psychology was worded as to be separate of biology(to be honest that sounds insane to me). In string theory a primordial “one” or entity is looked for that can lead to all other things if I can sum it up that way. Back to QM, A quantum step, and or jump is quantized meaning a discrete amount of energy, yet while it is called discrete it sill retains the energy title. So in reference to einselction and emergent systems being discrete I could only think of as being the product of a larger field perhaps metastable in time produced constantly by decoherence. This sort of draws into effect questions such as if physical constants if we know them happen to simply be metastable in the same fashion. This then leads me to question how much damage we might have really don’t to the environment for how long. If its by quantum phenomena that the classical world has emerged, changing such basically then details a huge amount of understanding that be required. I also think that giving the reality that environment is interactive that emergent systems cannot be fully discrete. Being quantum dots are the height really of quantum engineering prowess I would suggest the earth as a dot might be a bit out of our scope to control vs. simply interacting with to whatever scale such as global warming. This means the height of physical science would be severely challenged to truly bring the earth back to a global ecology currently supporting the life as we know it which is temporal and open to natural selection. Currenly I think the only real solution as of right now not for all time is simply trying to move in accordance with the environment as to aid its stability. We can record a great deal of variables in time about how the earth was and is currently. So its by means of trying to keep those in bounds that produces the earth as we know it. That to me is all environmental protection could really mean currently. As an item of interest, I would like to offer for further reading actually regardless of my topic. "Environmental effects In 1995, a large flock of migrating snow geese landed on the Berkeley Pit water and were killed, most likely by the high concentration of acid.[citation needed] 342 carcasses were recovered.[1] Their livers and kidneys had bloated, and many had eroded esophaguses.[citation needed] ARCO, the current custodian of the Pit, denied that the toxic water caused the death of the geese, instead blaming their deaths on their diet.[1] They maintain that the Pit is safe and environmentally sound.[citation needed] It is unclear what scientific basis this claim is made upon. Nearby residents are also concerned about the fog produced by the pit and are wondering what it is doing to their health. The most recent development in the clean-up was the construction of a treatment plant on Horseshoe Bend. This facility is intended to treat and divert water coming from the Horseshoe Bend flow. In addition, it will be able to treat the existing Berkeley Pit water in 2018, or whenever the water level hits the critical point of 5,410 feet above sea level. This number was set by Federal order and is intended to protect the ground water from being contaminated by the water in the pit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Pit It is currently one of Americas largest and most expensive clean up site environmentally speaking.

When you say quantum I am left to think stability over probability in regards to evolutionary reasons. Natural selection being what it is the concept of einselection becomes a somewhat playful idea but I don’t know really enough to talk about it at any serious lengths. I do however view QM as purely physical or not in some sense as of being guided by the super natural. Which I guess comes to the split in which some view the world and all of reality down to the second on the watch as some determined future and those that don’t, I don’t view the world that way and I can only see QM as supporting such also really. The mere physical reality to organic evolution I think simply shows reality to have a dynamic and not fully deterministic reality to the simple point of looking at the variance of gravel or snow. I mean if energy is quanta, energy cannot be destroyed and or created, energy can only change form. I think the rest pretty much sums itself up. Then I guess the opposite is to say quanta is not energy, though I don’t think that’s lawful really or correct. As far as I know conservation of energy holds for QM though I think there is violation somewhere in some symmetry but someone more educated on the matter would have to step in on that to make the final call, I don’t really think I can. In regards to my question I am basically asking if being able to experience stimuli in a fashion in which an organism can tell living from non living matter would be advantageous thus remain in existence biologically. Such as with generalist human behavior I would see such as a plus. Environmental change occurs faster then biological change. In fact adaptation to variance in the environment basically explains evolution. That being said again such instinct would show in human behavior, like fear or the use of language. I am trying to phrase vitalism as just such a reality. That vitalism as understood in say a culture is really the instinctual manifestation of simply determining life from non life. As if to match say the reality of phenotype plasticity or growth and development. Language exists but has no clear bounds as to what exactly it cant or can be.

Is the experience of vitalism as such is in philosophy a possibly evolutionary advantage? Being homo sapien is a generalist would not the ability to easily define living from non living elements of an environment become very favorable? What I mean basically is asking if vitalism as its currently understood a probable manifestation of certain organisms or species of life being able to understand life from non life as is currently understood? Such as language is a trait of some species with many possible forms such as the hundreds of dialects one can find in humanity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism "This article is about the non-mechanist philosophy. For other uses, see vital. Vitalism, as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary,[1] is a doctrine that the functions of a living organism are due to a vital principle distinct from physicochemical forces a doctrine that the processes of life are not explicable by the laws of physics and chemistry alone and that life is in some part self-determining Where vitalism explicitly invokes a vital principle, that element is often referred to as the "vital spark," "energy" or "élan vital," which some equate with the "soul." Vitalism has a long history in medical philosophies: most traditional healing practices posited that disease was the result of some imbalance in the vital energies which distinguish living from non-living matter. In the Western tradition, associated with Hippocrates, these vital forces were identified as the humours; Eastern traditions posited similar forces such as qi and prana. More recently, vitalistic thinking has been identified in the naive biological theories of children."[2]

When viewing spacetime in relativity if I understand correctly light or photons give rise to the ability to see the warping of spacetime along with other bodies such as planets right? If that is true could you look at the fabric as a wavefunction that is distorting? I mean does any merit for that thought exist in either math or the real world?

There is no crisis to the reality of organic evolution. In fact I would say the only crisis in all reality is with the people that cant deal with the existence of evolution really. I mean then the other way to say it is science as a whole, which is in agreement with evolution, only holds onto the idea because it is false and has no proof and really Milton should be getting a Noble prize right now. This “paradigm” as you would label it which I am sure is a legal term in some manner of the term has lasted the test of time so far in regards to countless empirical experiments, observations and methodologies ranging from various disciplines of science. This means chiefly physics, chemistry, and of course biology and related aggregates of such a whole which have studied evolution have found nothing but support for it. The sheer volume of this information is I think impossible to keep up with or even record on an individual level what exists. This is a cruel farce at the hands of immature people and it really needs to be remolded into something at least sane if not rational though I don’t know if you can separate those two. I In reality though there is no smoking gun for creationism. There is however the ability to see creationist jargon, a smoking gun does indeed exist for that. I guess it would be funny to try to equate why the Roman culture was the way it was with all the wars in stuff in ancient time but I guess you would have to be hard fighting all of those dinosaurs.

Right but you don’t go one second say at your workplace then unknown to you appear magically in the center of the earth, I just don’t know if that happens period though if it did such would have to I guess go beyond what we can observe which would be at that uncertain point QM right? I mean that sort of falls along those same lines of black holes destroying information rendering ability for full objective description of the whole. It would also though seem as if we could do that humanity could know the future before it happens yet we can know the past which is plainly obvious. The whole idea of say the many worlds hypothesis to the reality of say the double slit experiment and the inability to destroy the basic foundation of QM which predicts the uncertain randomness of things I think should change just about everyone’s perspective on reality yet the study of such seems to I feel lack the raw integrity of exploring such a mystery by a group of curious professionals as it simply falls to the wayside of flawed and temporal logical mechanisms. I only say this because the classical view of the world would have to emerge from such a system or states or whatever it is really simply because objects can interact in time and become recorded and understood or else why don’t planes fall out of the sky all the time. The implications of this stretch to anything you would want to consider even organic evolution which has many physical bounds but of which can you separate into classical phenomena(is such temporal) down to quanta or quantum phenomena. I mean is the formation and continued processes of the earth did life start out in some band of energy resembling more or less quantum dots? I mean its the framework that governs chemical reality right? The questions or ramifications of such are clearly astounding.

That’s where I start to think of relativity not in the pure sense of Einstein(who of course was a pure genius) but in the scale of things in regards to energy and any geometry it might take on even if such is purely temporal, I mean I don’t know of any arrangement of matter or mass that is invulnerable to change and at certain scales such as with the dreaded singularity our models fall apart right? Yet that same singularity would imply then also vectors or simply the regular passage of time to some extent either at the scale of the universe or at least in a local sense to some extent. I know QM predicts particles to bump in and out of existence but I don’t know about that happening with stuff much bigger then the subatomic and certainly not a star in size yet. Also for me the idea of the uncertainty principle basically states that interference or decoherence on quantum states, for that to end, would basically require one to observe nothing? Yet in plain old reality as I would have it as a person reality exits as a continuum. So maybe it really is just physics changing with scale, which is my bid currently in the thread:D My only other option to think is that we simply misunderstood so much overall and happen to be worshipping the wrong way. Personally I know we cant grow and study stars but even on the scale we can judge things giving current equipment in the face of concepts like relativity and QM I am sure we can conduct the full range of proper experiments in which to attach the math to as a description. The only problem I see with that is the somewhat regular occurrence of phenomena in the universe, such as the existence of the star. I have no real reason to think this as so much could possibly be eluding me right now, one basic aspect is that we don’t know if the existence of energy is infinite or finite. Conservation laws would have it as infinite right? So overall its still just following for the sake of sanity the current Copenhagen interpretation overall of just sticking to the empirical we can measure.

If you can have commutative properties for an axiom such as A+B is equal to B+A does this mean physically in reality that at some extent all physical objects must at least have one thing in common? I mean A could be bob and B could be ann so you could say bob and ann is here and ann and bob are here right? On that note should you would not say annbob is here or bobann is here, so does equality in this sense merely apply to this existence in knowledge of bob and ann? Or what else is so fundamental about A+B=B+A that it can pertain fully or correctly to physical reality? Because to me for it to reach equality in another sense then applies at least a scope or scale to the existence of local realism, in that you can call either of them at any time and have both know to be at your house at a certain time, of course in respects to other variables such as being able to act on bob and ann in certain degrees of freedom in the first place. What strikes me is then the ability to obtain dynamic variance which exists in reality. The reason this gets to me is I think I am missing something which pertains to my earlier paragraph. That is the relationship of physical objects in physical reality. It would appear that something base exists in all of physical reality which allows for the study of it as a whole, such as you can have a symmetry, in say the appearance of a species with minor variation, to intense variation of species say from plant to human, of course in respects to the ability to still study such at some level as a whole unit with certain degrees of symmetry, such as the presence of sight or DNA. So I guess in terms of natural units, does equality or the use of such as an axiom itself need to be used as if it were purely a natural unit when used to describe physical reality, or is that to much positivism to use along with math?

Does nucleation lead to any product larger then monoatomic in state? Such as nucleation is required for planetary formation even? Stars if I am correct have to have a certain mass to go nuclear right? So if a star is roughly homogenous would it be something in the order of buckyball on steroids or astronomical units of measurement, Or at certain masses would other natural phenomena start to take over such as atmospheric patterns due to the motion of say energy and matter within the system? I am just wondering if nucleation is sort of a seed state that can lead to a certain types of phenomena from molecular in scale to how large or what is the cut off on the effect of nucleation.