foodchain

I thought it meant uncertain locality or momentum at the same time in regards to measurement?

I don’t think the path is pointless, its just that science cannot work with it. I don’t know if it ever will be able to. Science has to have something testable or empirical, thusly the reasoning behind the word. Some might call it a materialistic view on life, but I think any rational person would at least accept the idea that reality does exist regardless if you want to call it nature or some other title. Thusly I think all science can work with in reality is what it can get empirical with. You can make equations or what not in math all day but the reason math and physics are separate is physics tries to put the empirical to math or model the empirical with math. So for hidden variables and the idea that some super natural entity will be one of those is a question for people that hold such a view, but empirically there is nothing to it currently for anything scientific. Science stops at the empirical and the understanding of such, this of course can grow in time. Such as at one point science could not understand as much as it can now thanks to the electron microscope.

Can you get pi anywhere on the Klein bottle or are the two related in any way? I am just wondering being I don’t know much about the Klein bottle but I am wondering overall if it has any connection to irrational numbers then of course I though about pi.

As I am interested in evolution I of course have come into contact with concepts like phylogeny and how such is determined. Looking at all the variance to methods of observation for instance in this I noticed of course that a disease vector more or less is a description on how a population of organisms propagate or move in the ecology they occupy. Now obviously giving adaptation items like locomotion or motility by organisms is something studied, but in the context of behavioral ecology what are the ramifications of such? Not only this but does movement itself denote a fine area of study for issues like phylogenics? For instance can only a certain bauplan conduct a certain scale of movement in a giving environment? The obvious answer to me would be yes but then giving say microbial life and rates and variations of adaptability how can you use such to say find means or rates of movement in certain materials, such as clay for instance? How would you define such, the only way I could see of course induces NS or Darwinian type thinking, such as a fish has its form because its what has remained fit over time in the context of the ecology. The question can further extend of course such as now how microbial life can move because in context of avian populations they interact with. So the overall question is in terms of study behavioral ecology and how organisms manage to move in certain environments.

I don’t understand the question I think. Do you want to know how for instance biology claims natural selection exists as a process? Well if so for starters there is no certainty as to the exact ramifications of the environment. For instance the presence of DNA, we only have current life, which is open to variation over time, to think all life requires DNA. Its not however that human observation lead to DNA, or its processes. This process can also be mapped. One example of following variation in organisms in which the variation is selected for or against is with microbial life. You can trace for instance a population in time as variation is selected for leading to variants of the original as say dominate aspects of the population. Say population of microbes A to population B over time. Fitness or what that means also changes and life will adapt by selection to the new fitness landscape. This experiment can be carried out by a layman really if you put sometime into understanding such, or at least that’s my opinion. The results also show variation, as in you are dealing with a probability in that repeated results will yield differences in say time of adaptation or even what the adaptation will be. Convergent evolution being what it is shows heavily in life but the selection process I guess is not so narrow as to allow for a mean average really:D Or you can have both fish and crustaceans surviving in the oceans. Yet physiologically speaking the same though not exact reality of following those microbe populations can be used on life in general, such as using biochem or molecular techniques to solve for phylogeny among other ways physically to do such, like fossils, or even behavior. As is different ways of viewing evolution do not reveal radical differences on the reality of such, or its occurrence as a process. *on a side note I don’t know if a layman can conduct such experiments, what I should have said is that such an action is rather basic knowledge really in regards to results.

Is the uncertainly principal in any way applicable to wave function collapse in that the collapse itself is related to the uncertainty? What I am trying to get at is that uncertainty and probability are described as fundamental aspects of a quantum system. Such systems display properties that can both be wave and particle like. Wave function collapse then if I understand correctly is really just an eigenstate of superposition? Though if I understand decoherence correctly at all the idea of the wave function collapse is merely illusionary, or never really reached. I think this is dynamical decoherence correct? Well if that’s true is the uncertainty itself the illusionary mechanism of the dynamic system in operation when it comes to decoherence or interference? I also do not understand uncertainty on this other point. Is the max we could ever understand or observe information from uncertainty currently limited to the speed of light? I don’t know now how to word the question any better then that we can observe to a certain degree of uncertainty right?

I would have to say so for a couple of reasons. First the current understanding of physics and chemistry all the way down to a QM level has change being something pretty normal currently in the universe. Say a star for example or stars, but most everything has some degree to difference to it, such as studying geology and finding out that type of rock is far more then you would think in regards to actual types. So again to reference back if its physical phenomena executing in time that leads to say the grand canyon, well then its just physics then in some mechanistic way overall doing such. So life to be life would have to satisfy this, realizing that environment can play such a role in this then obviously its those physical laws that currently govern physical phenomena occurring in time. I don’t know how much more basic to say it. I think to say otherwise is to suggest that the laws of physics and or chemistry do not apply to life, which I think is safe to say is false. So in reality mixing two elements to produce a chemical can come in various shapes and sizes, but mixing two elements will produce on a regular and mechanical basis another exact type compound in many ways but not all, such is how much. Now not exactly sure but environments of this on concentrations of matter/energy interacting produces a wide array of environments, but not all of them happen to be fundamental to the point of being some quark gluon plasma if that exists or strangelets. For instance the various generations of subatomic reality already can come in exactly that, generations with an ability to be shown that it exists. So for in the solar system alone to have such a great deal of variation even in planets or moons down to trying to predict weather or why hurricanes typically only occur on certain parts of our planet I think shows this. So I don’t understand why you would separate people from the mix. So I think that if humans happen to be physical, like the rest of normal life, then why study it as something different and yes it surely is a product of just that. Now to make the jump to life itself that physical variation exists but its in the parameters of physical reality that only parts of such variation happen to be selected, not only this but selected on a normal basis ranging millions of years and more such as in features of the bauplan, but on the same basis not being absolute as to have no variation in say terrestrial to aquatic ecosystems shows just that physical reality. This can be studied empirically and quantifiably of course both showing nothing but this reality of life which is selection by the environment being the current and constant form of such a physical reality or constant. Change occurs, not all of it makes it, some of it can make it for a long time but not as long as some others, plus variation itself is a constant even if life has it reduced to a small amount of what it could be. This is a physical reality of life that has been proven again, natural selection or selection which in itself is reflective of an environmental variable in a major way, I wont go as far as to say everything, I don’t know everything, but for what we can study I would have to say its just about all that exists in regards to defining life overall. Now I know out few thousand year recorded cultures might have some pretty bring ideas, but those have not stood up to billions of years of environment yet. So yes, if its by physics that all things can occur great and small currently, then obviously its that same thing giving rise to life via how it physically works in reality. Giving the actual complexity of reality in comparison to our tiny ape like brains I would say we might understand this fully tomorrow or in say three million years, they both sound like good predictions on my part. IS that good enough?

I don’t know about life reverting so much, as in I don’t know about that:D I know life for instance which is easy to see has vestigial structures, which were say items of physiology once in use lost to evolutionary change or what not. This is also evident down to a molecular level, all of which allows for forensics! The elongation of a limb by itself say a digit and even in that example probably has some kind of name, it eludes me, but the Aye-aye is a good example of what you are talking about I think. Its story though is kind of sad as mythology of sorts has it being taking down pretty much as a species when coupled with other factors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aye-aye I don’t look at life evolving as a ladder, but more or less I think evolution is really nothing more then a product of natural selection over time operating on life to produce stable organisms to there respective environments. This of course is a rather broad meaning to it, but still if a human cant keep a suitable environment alive on say some expedition to the poles he or she will still perish all be it slowly and painfully in most cases such as feet/toes decaying under frostbite or other extremities or the face, I think those ones go first typically.

Its just that though in that the connection to evolution while clinically sane is just reduced to DNA in this instance I don’t know if that is all life can have of course. Another is interaction also has an environmental aspect, so you would have to factor that in though. I do not know for sure but separation of such might have to also go to various stages of metabolic activity or development, either one I am sure would be fine. Some species that use DNA have different RNA, giving the reality of evo-devo also you find the picture becoming more distorted in terms of being a straight forward enumeration. Cells of course simply from the basis of histone also along with gene regulation for instance, then the relationship of just that from all the various cells in a body. Life seems to be very fine tuned, this becomes something problematic to me when you then would have to find a way to route all this into enough homeostasis to keep the organism alive and well in any giving circumstance. Now thanks to Darwinian thinking such as fitness using genes as some discrete amount to measure such its not all in the dark, but the reality to me of epistasis via all the cells of an organism through a proteome which is built around survival in environmental conditions for whatever that leads to be it spores or a hyena is something very complex. I just wonder through all of this where mutation rates, spots of activity and so on come to exist purely as in 100% by chance of if use of something in time leads to more resistant or stable establishment of something, which of course I think would be purely ecological really or evidence of natural selection, more so as time continues. In evo-devo for instance the bauplan is highly conserved, why? Another instance is say senses. Sight for instance depending on how it wired into say a particular organism on its own I think would give it a definite edge in some situations say such as reacting to a predator, so just that change I think in time could alter so much. Then of course you have so much bulk information to work though such as the large and growing list of say biological processes.

I am not sure, but I do not think the genome describes in full detail all the possibilities in a giving organism in terms of say molecular interaction. I know the numbers are huge, but even if its utterly relative I don’t think you can have an infinite number of quantum states for instance, of course I don’t know for sure. So if that’s true for instance with say chemistry, not knowing exactly what can exist in terms of matter for the universe or what not, then open ended evolution must obviously then also have a cap or limit. Sorry iNow I am being purely speculative I have no idea what life can or cannot do. I would think that life will surely have some troubles when the sun decides to die out.

Well for instance in decoherence at what point can you say you have no "entanglement" with what you are observing? I use the world entanglement vary loosely to mean interacting with, which to me always implied environment. The basic reality of universe implied environment to be honest, I mean if I am made of the same stuff then the universe found a way to look at itself even if its from a quantum scale:D That though implies something far to complicated for me to even put into a sentence let alone think about such in any form of clarity. To try and reduce my head back to some sanity. To try and answer my own question I posed above I don’t think you could observe on any level a quantum system without interacting with it, which implies to me what is the end of a quantum field? I mean if at a subatomic level the sun is soaking everything in our solar system with quanta, so does that mean the entire system to some form of a wave function is interacting via decoherence? I mean if observation is a physical phenomena and all, I guess though I would be saying observation in a sense of any form of interaction. If a quantum system has to select itself, in time I would think, does that mean even the smallest single disturbance to a particle a millions light years away can have an effect on say my heart exploding. I would think that scale of decoherence then must have some form a relative basis or a field strength that diminishes in say time or space or something I guess. The weird idea to me then is you can only move at C in that then right which would imply to time? Or is there something that would take the format of being say non classical information that can move faster then light in reference to wave function collapse in some field decoherence?

Is there a finite amount of quantum positions or states that would also put a finite limit on all the possible forms to open ended evolution? Basically does QM put a cap on the limit to which life can evolve into?

My guess is this desire to separate by the beam becomes more and more apparent at say larger distances? As for the vacuum issue, that’s one reason I was thinking of various fields, is it at all possible to maintain say a series of potentials or even a gradients of such on a microscopic scale say for like an half an inch in length? Overall I am thinking if you could get the right stuff and obtain uniformity of it down to a certain precision along with the ability to have that change at points you could control the appearance of electricity.

Could you make electricity appear like a laser in form? I was thinking last night maybe with the use of various fields you could suspend some kind of material and have it arrange as to conduct electricity as fine as possible if not do other things.

I learn best by level of interest personally. In grade school my grades would be poor unless I favored the subject interest wise. I don’t know if this is a fault of a plus overall. I look at college in the same light, for instance say a prereq, I would be lucky to get through the class with a C or C+ if my interest lacks, and that grade shows pure effort:D As for being bored I think its easy to see interest by what people will "naturally" gravitate towards. When reading something scientific for pure interest I tend to only read articles in the natural sciences. I also have an aversion to math from the simple point of its descriptive powers of nature I fear. Such as the possibility to make something work mathematically but the math does not truly describe it. That one problem has steered me away from math for the most part and now I have to suffer through it anyways having to take calculus in order to graduate if I so choose. I think if you could gain interest, you can make anything possible really in time with people, be it students or not. Else I don’t know how you can look at all the various things people do in life and make sense of it really.

Its simple I think, such as say apples to oranges. On one end up have species like a tiger, or a lion or a bear. On the other end you have more social creatures, like primates for example. So if one species has its evolution in the context of being a solitary creature save maybe for mating vs. one that has evolved or phylogeny it has holds an affinity for being social, what is the relative impact maybe on individual survival. obviously solitary animals seem to do well in the wild. So if that’s the case, then obviously we have a nature then. As CDarwin was expressing such that a human cannot survive outside the scope of his species influence. Is that a product of such an evolution, like language. Many social creatures display this trait even down to insects be it almost like digital music there.

That is an interesting way of putting it. What about the reality that we also evolved from a social animal? How much of an learning attribute would you attribute to that in regards to human issues such as tools or language? I ask this because your question made me think of what possible reality can one person sustain themselves and really for how long. It would seem to me that death without reproduction would apply here but for just the time the individual could survive. I think the relative min or max of animals that could survive solo though being social in origin would possibly make a pattern:D I also heard that long space travel times would induced insanity on the people doing such, is that true?

Well if you take a modeled quantum system you can disturb it via the environment in which you will induce change. If this is a basic reality of matter at least like you would find in say chemistry that you can also view such a facet of nature as applying to biological systems. Being current consensus has life blindly evolving for the most part, or that its not made in a shop somewhere then natural phenomena has to explain it. If the rules which for instance control chemical behavior are based in QM say from selection possibly then modeling an organism at that level I think would give a much more precise, and accurate depiction of it. Again I think you could start incredibly small in relation to an organism from what already exists, such as the Krebs cycle, that aspect of metabolism has been thoroughly documented more then say what attributes to fingernail appearance such as natural width or length. So it would take modeling such a system alone on a QM basis before say trying to tackle the whole picture. Again I know it would just produce a giant mutable rubix cube but if you could understand it there to how its actually interacting at a level of matter/energy then the benefits I could only see as enormous. As for processing power I would think large scale distributed networks would be the answer. As I think is visible with the reality of arvix I think putting such out would generate response if even papers. Biophysics already has this but I think biophysics in general stays far more applied and experimental and lacks say as large of a theoretical basis that would lead to theory you would find at a cosmic level. I think such truly is called theoretical biology but I do not know how many people are running around in it trying to crunch QM and organic evolution for instance. I think overall though that it’s a better option for study on the basis of how much you could possibly reduce uncertainty. The major issue to me from what I understand would be how much can you currently equate the understanding of life to the understanding of QM, I think you would have to generate possibly something more novel such as hypothesis to both really. I read a paper recently, like the day after I made this post that showed relaxation being pivotal in accurate prediction molecular behavior biological in origin. So some framework that can work obviously exists.

Well your question to me is a bit confusing. I am not expert either so please keep that in mind:D Placental mammals happen to be a rather new trend, but do we call them dominate from the basis of physiological characteristics or there appearance in relation to the rest of the ecological landscape, in that what makes them better if anything? Nurturing instinct, is that just reduced to them? Some early line of mammal, cant remember the name had a really small brain size, what did that mean? Then of course you can go into the oceans, but there exists a slight barrier there in that you now have to account for that whole environment. Speaking of which how do you gauge species that lose more noticeable traits, such as penguins. Some species of seal live as long as the teeth they have can get through the ice. So again I don’t know exactly what you mean, we seem pretty dominate but I would suggest that overall save for the sun going nova that microbes have a higher probability or surviving long term. So if I can go out on a limb I guess it would be the state which can persist the longest in time as a criteria possibly? Reduced to merely vertebrates? Well I would have to say humans being we are not niche dependent. We can take I think the most disturbance of say vertebrates and survive. Small mammals come into question in regards to say a nuclear war scenario and other situations but they would have to still find a niche and or overall adapt in time to one. We could potentially skip a lot of that by creating our own still. So I would say our brain is the best along with generalist behavior, I would say it could also be our own downfall of course in respects to issues like global climate change, ecological ruin, or more or less we still stand open to say natural selection. I guess it would come down to if humans can empirically and objectively access and decide really on course of actions that retain the highest possible fitness, being we still have an instinctual side if not all of it being that;) , time will tell.

I don’t understand this part. If life were just chemistry then that would make the field of chemistry just biology;) Last time I checked though you do have difference. Its like saying life is just genes when in fact genetics is just one part of the whole. See going back in time life never just appeared say with something as in eukaryotes came from prokaryotes, so again say DNA itself could be a temporal product of natural selection in itself, I think this simple ass point gets missed a lot. Reproduction either asexually and sexually though seem to persist also, so would it be life is sex centered? What about resource centered? Maybe survival value is a big mixing pot of these things at any giving moment, being life would not make to much a splash if it managed to only persist a few minutes on earth in total. So I guess the point I am trying to get at is chemistry is a tool of a certain scale really, and it views primarily just that. Now its not that I think chemistry does not have a huge application in understanding life, just that its not the end all by far. I mean what energetically on a quantum level leads to life? Does Schrödinger’s cat or the uncertainty principal hold any fundamental effects on life? I mean life occurs physically in reality under physical laws and phenomena right, chemistry is not all of that and again its just a tool of a certain scale in which to make observations. I mean the life sciences have a ton of fields you can study, like molecular biophysical chemistry:D Maybe animal behavior, I mean how can carbon fall in love? I think that many larger questions also fall in line with big questions like evolution, the scary thing to me is what happens when two natural sciences reach different conclusions. For instance I think selection rules on a quantum level are not fully understood yet people already have an idea of what is impossible in some fields. If going by just what life does for the most part, well it seems to persist really even though it does not appear to be fundamental in nature to what extent of nature is truly fundamental.

I made another thread about the relationship of QM and organic evolution in which I thought was interesting so I would like to rehash such with a different question. In quantum decoherence a themes is that quantum systems are not isolated environments. If by QM its possible to model the total reality of an environment, even if its by individual systems operating as a collective whole, be it an organism or a star. The question then I think takes on more of a role being QM is a framework in which to explain the presence of something so elementary in these systems such as a star and or chemistry. So using a QM framework somewhat akin to decoherence do you think it would be possible to model say evolution in an ecological sense? I mean being life has a molecular basis like many other physical objects:D It would also I think show benefit in that a mutation or simply a variation of this ties into an ecological or environmental theme both on say expression of the organism in real time in relation to the environment, but on an internal basis also such as if the mutation for instance was lethal in a developmental stage. I think such a question can bring about more fundamental questions I think in biology such as what chemically could allow for such states in any theme of entropy for instance to if life automatically evolves in a Darwinian sense and DNA repair for instance is a reality of such. I look forward to discussion on this one if anyone is interested. Please just don’t say no and type in a why also, that would be greatly appreciated. I have a lasting interest in this question and would like to work on it to say broaden the understanding of life if such a question looks like it could produce any sort of data. I don’t know if people already try to study life from such an angle, if they do please add links as I have not really noticed anything I think that falls along the exact lines I am putting forward. I have also put some thought into various mathematical tools I would like to use, such as boundary conditions for example though I have not worked on any equations at this time. *As a side note I think such studies could have a basis in say understanding material systems overall. For the sake of a reply I will try to add some more info in. I think initially you would have to define of course a set of tools. I am looking towards boundary conditions in relation to scope of say a biological process say the Krebs cycle in terms of trying to find say quantum relaxation or equilibrium as a goal of homeostasis from a molecular viewpoint. I think scope would have to become important for trying to define not only a history but the extent of a system to be modeled. Being metabolism can I think be viewed for say a multicellular organism as a product of each cells giving metabolism at a time I think scope becomes again more important to the task at hand. If for instance we can look at epistasis as a particular genome executing in time, time being an important function of course via the proteome I think it could also lead to more insight on the basis of a phenotype to genotype. So possibly trying to view a giving epistatic network in a time based way to environmental stimulation via the proteome. Biochemistry and genetics of course have yielded high amounts of information on say a giving metabolic pathway or signaling aspect of biological function. I would say starting with just something already well understood in that faction. The ultimate aim I would try to think is that a giving amount of possibilities must exist at any point in time, which sort of makes an organism look like a giant rubix cube. I think this would allow from say the realities of something like atoxia to be studied in an environmental or ecological relationship down to a molecular level, to the point of being able to explain from a molecular viewpoint to a whole system at an organismal level of why for instance a bauplan for aquatic life varies as much as it does to say terrestrial life. Being abotic and biotic factors both have a physical basis I think natural selection could then have more light shed on it in real time as to maybe why a gene would become silenced or not. Being epigenetic networks for instance become a reality and that genes must communicate via a post translational modification reality in the proteome to each other I think the gene centric view suffers greatly as does biology. More so when the reality of environmental impact stands as it does in regards to importance. The overall idea I think would hinge on a more reduced level of viewing basically energy/matter based interactions down to even a subatomic level for possible information, or a more concrete bridge of natural selections impact on life. It would though allow for you to start very small and the ability to predict say tertiary structure of a protein is already past beings science fiction.

Does a unitary operator itself denote that a finite amount of stuff exists in the universe?

I don’t understand how he can reach this understanding of climate science either. Al Gore was and still interacts with politics for example, but he does not produce the science behind his stance science does. This is conducted in a fashion sound with accepted scientific practice. So for him to relate this to people I don’t understand how purely politics would be climate science more so that global warming of course is not a purely climate science issue and has gained support via science by other scientific fields of study. I think of course as personal opinion the issue is more dramatic in terms of human culture due to impact. As in this debate does not rage over the status of gravity for instance, yet both are scientific avenues of study which pertain to the natural world. I know that studies have been conducted in the name of global warming that have turned out to be false, but in that context even if such was purely scientific in purpose such as studying the sun for instance in relation to solar forcing came out to be incorrect as the main cause of global warming the reality to me is science is not always going to be right on every little thing as a constant in time in regards to every little detail at the moment, its why we have models and theory in the first place. That being said I still cannot find in regards to science a reason to support the claim that climate science is purely political, i think such an opinion is far more political actually that differs from say Gore as in I don’t know to what extent if any science would support such a stance.

Would this possibly work as an interesting primer video for say an educational purpose to stimulate say open dialogue in a class on the subject. In advance if the link does not work please let me know. Also its in a entertainment format but again I am asking about it in reference of a more social context also educationally.

http://www.societyofrobots.com/