pioneer

Psychology is concerned with analyzing the internal data generated by the mind/brain. As an analogy, say a new strain of bacteria was generating new complex chemicals. The scientist would analyze the chemical output and then try to discover what enzymes and genes were responsible. The layman, who does know much about biology might say the gas part of the output stinks and that is it. But the scientist will see significance even in this unique stink and want to know what it is. The mind/brain also generates output, such as dreams. This output starts inside the brain and creates data that is observed from within. This output is not as simple as a chemical output, since it has many layers that go down to chemistry-biology, all the way to complex and even organized patterns. The psychologist will try to trace the source. There are no brain reading machines to make this tracing easier, so they have rely on people who witness the output and report it. Say our new bacteria was not only generating chemicals, but once these complex chemical formed, these chemicals arrangement themselves in geometric patterns, which morph as time goes on. This is not so unlikely with bacteria output. However, with the mind/brain, electro-chemical signals are not just being generated, but the final output of this complex generation can form complex sensory patterns which can take on almost sensory shape, we know, and even beyond. This internal data is coming from a natural source, and its output is just as natural as bacteria. The layman may think this the dream data stinks since they can't see any value. But to the skilled eye it tells us things. from which we can infer many things, some of which can used for medical treatment.

There is a wild card variable when it comes to internal data. For example, it is your first time jumping out of a plane to parachute. You are all gun-ho, until you look out the door. There is now a sudden feeling of fear. This is animal fear. The visual input data of the height merges with an instinctive data grid to create this natural internal data of fear, right down to the uneasy feeling in your stomach. On the other hand, you have been in class for several days learning about parachute safety, so there is also a part of you that is fairly sure this is safe to do. Now there are two internal data merges connected to the same input data, one from the conscious mind and the other from the instinctive unconscious. This is an easy example to see the distinction of two data merger conscious as internal data. Let us look at a case where there are two distinct data merges of external data, but they appear to stem from a single merged grid. Both the conscious and unconscious have their grids, but consciousness thinks this is all from a conscious grid. The easiest example to see is falling in love. The behavior is very collective at one level, but it is also somewhat specific in terms of a unique place and space and time. Anyone can tell when another is in love due to its collective/instinctive basis. But at the same time, there is a level of uniqueness to the couple due to each being unique. When you are in love, one sees the beloved through rose colored glasses, while thinking this is due to the sensory reality of them. The data is being process consciously and unconsciously with the dual merger putting one in this semi-conscious state. If you were to fall out of love, so the unconscious grid changes, the same external observations, which made the other so beloved, might start to bother you. It depends on which unconscious grid is merged with the conscious grid. Others will notice your inflated image of the beloved or the deflated image during the break up. But because of the merge of internal data, the person in the middle, thinks both are reasonable. But external reality never changed to the third person. Another grid for sensory data to merge for internal data, can come from what Freud called the superego. This is sort of the collective traditions of one's culture. Unlike the ego collecting its own data of external reality, partially merged with unconscious data collection, the super ego taught, by culture, to create its own merge grid for external data. For example, Romeo and Juliette are in love, due to the merge of their unconscious and conscious minds. But there is also the superego (tradition) merge which forbids their love. As the story goes, there is no good way to merge the superego with their overlapped love grids. Each is asked to repress the instinctive love and merge their ego with their cultural superego. But nature keeps merging with their ego. They are torn in the middle in a grid which has no form, which can generate a resolution. External sensory data is not always so straight forward in the light of internal data.

When one begins to rationalize their conscience is when one also learns how to ignore it. The conscience is connected to collective humanity. For example, the Nazi's reasoned their right to world dominance and from that gained a moral conviction that the ends justified the means; natural selection. There were many smart people who bought in. The conscience uses the main frame of the brain, while the ego and makes use of a terminal. The Nazis left the collective human realm of the mainframe, in favor of a terminal process; lost collective empathy in favor of a terminal doctrine. Most people can empathize with collective human experiences. But once we add unique terminal processes, there is a barrier for the conscience. I can empathize with the loss of a loved one. The language and culture does not matter if I know this is the situation, since this is collective human experience. Once this becomes language specific and no longer collective, the use of the conscience can break down. For example, say I needed translate, before I knew what to empathize. I can't empathize right away. It may look like I have no conscience to these language specific terminal processes. The god connection to conscience implies the mainframe not a terminal. It also defines collective so the translation link is easier to maintain. For example, someone may hate chocolate and the next person loves it; two terminal processes. My conscience tries to empathize with both via sharing. But now I first need to know which is which before I can empathize with these two terminal processes. One terminal may interpret my sharing as good and the other as my being inconsiderate without a (terminal) conscience. So rather than just be natural with the main frame and share, I need to repress that and learn at the terminal level. That becomes faddish and is rarely collective humanity.

Going from the short-lived substructure of matter at extreme energy, into long-lived matter like electrons-protons, implies a drastic loss of entropy. With the loss of entropy, there should be a extreme release of the energy, which had been contained within the entropy; big bang. In accelerators, it takes a lot of energy to convert long lived protons into short lived high entropy sub-structure. The formation of the universe went the other way, going from short lived high entropy accelerator product into long lived protons/electrons; entropy drop. Therefore the formation of the universe needs a way to drastically lower entropy. A white hole, I would guess, would adds to much energy and would therefore increase the entropy. It would be good for making the initial high entropy state, but we would still need a way to lower entropy. One possible way is to combine a white hole and a black hole. We have a white hole that overlaps a black hole. The white hole gives us the high entropy states, while the black hole lowers the entropy. What is left is long lived matter and a lot of energy for an expansion of low entropy product.

Let me given another example. There is a small group of scientists observing a bird, to collect external data. The way this data train goes; light that is reflecting off the bird enters the eyes. The eyes convert the light energy into electro-chemical energy. The electro-chemical energy merges with other electro-chemical aspects within the brain. Consciousness then interprets these composite internal electro-chemical signals to create an awareness of the features of the bird. While the scientists are looking at the bird, to collect detailed data, the bird flies away. Luckily, Joe has a photographic memory. With the physical object gone, Joe makes uses of the lingering electrochemical signals within his brain to help fill in the remaining details. In this case, Joe uses internal data. Although we can't directly see what Joe see's in his head, using any known machine, since it is a bunch of electro-chemical signals, we can accept what Joe says, because the details he fills in, have been verifiable in the past. As Joe interprets the electro-chemical signals of the after-image in his memory, converting the signals to audio signals (language), he also provides details of the twists in the branch, the texture of the tree's bark, etc., Although this visual input, had to have entered everyone's brain, most were not aware of this external data. They are all bird experts and their consciousness was only focusing on the electro-chemical signals from the bird, ignoring other data. This extra internal data would not be considered verifiable, since they were not aware of this data. But since they trust Joe's memory, they will use his internal data as the basis for this extra external verification. Let me give a different example. We are sailors 1000 years ago. As we look out on the ocean, what we see is a flat earth. The way this alternate reality works is the sensory data enters the eyes and is again converted to electrochemical signals. These signals merges with the electro-chemical signals associated with the belief/memory the earth is flat. Consciousness comes into the picture at the electrochemical stage, such that the blend of internal and external data is what is interpreted as external data verification. They all see the flat earth and extrapolate from there. Philosophy often discusses what is reality. Relative to consciousness, consciousness enters at the electrochemical stage of the process. This is at the junction between the sensory input and what we assume to be true (internal data organization). Within this merge of internal and external data, we interpret reality. Our sailer above is convince what he sees is real, because at the level of the sensory input this is real data entering the brain. But at the place where consciousness come in, this data merges with his internal data organization. If we all have the same internal data organization (flat earth), we all see the same thing as verifiable external data.

There are two forms of data we can collect. There is external data and internal data. As an example, a group of people are at a concert. They all see/hear the same external things at the via their sensory systems. Although they all see/hear the same things, the concert might impact each person in a unique way, internally. If you were trying to observe the internal impact of the concert on yourself (internal data observation), one might note data like feelings, sensations, imagery, memory inductions, etc. Unlike the external data, which we all can see, agree, and prove, this internal data can also be hard data, yet it is not as easy to transfer. I can use language to describe the internal data, but that would always fall short of my being able to get another to have the same full inner experience. We can't do a Mr Spock mind meld to transfer this inner data. It existed in reality, but there is not any good way to scientifically prove that it existed in reality down to details. You would have to take my word. We would call that subjective experience, even if it was data that was objectively observed. It can be objective to the person who has the internal experience, but it would be considered subjective to others, since it can't be scientifically proven. Maybe an analogy is seeing the moon and then trying to transfer this to a blind man who can't see that exact thing. What is objectively real will not appear to exist, since you can't prove it too him in a scientific way since he can't utilize the needed data transfer method (visual). The scientific method breaks down with internal data, since even if it is real, there is a break down with respect to the data transfer linkage so the data is not reproducible.

The conscience is that part of the mind which considered our actions in the context of others (group) and not just the self. It might be based on love your neighbor. For example, you are hungry and see a large piece of cake in the fridge. You can eat it all, but you think about the other people in the house, and leave some for them. If one lacks a conscience, they do not have the capacity to see beyond their own needs and impulses. They would just eat all the cake. It might not even dawn on them that their behavior impacts others. This takes less brain.

When it comes to human consciousness, there are two types of data. There are external experiences and internal experiences. We can watch a concert and all of us will see the same external data of the concept. But the music and visual effects, will affect each person, via internal data. If someone has a particular inner experience, that is a composite of feelings, images and sensations, and another did not, how could they transfer this internal data, to recreate this full experience. It is not easy, since we can't do a Mr Spock mind meld. There is a lot of data to transfer, yet there is no good way to transfer the data into the external sphere. Since we can not transfer the data to prove this with hard data, it will not exist to science, even if it did exist as internal data. As an experiment try to transfer an inner experience, that you know is sound, to someone who has not had this experience. Even if you tell the truth, you will not be able to prove it. Science protocol is not designed for internal data, since the protocol will not be able to verify the internal data and therefore would conclude what did occur did not have sufficient proof to be real. Religion is more about internal data. Faith is not from the outside but is based on verifiable internal data.

I tend to think most of these laws were practical in their day. Forbidden certain foods, like shell fish, made practical sense before refrigeration, in a hot place without ice. It is easy to get sick. Once you know about red tide, proper storage and refrigeration, this became more of a tradition. Leaving farmland to fallow every 7 years was good for the soil since it allows time for nature to renew the soil at very little cost. Once you know about pH, nutrients levels and soil amenities, the modern farmer can artificially compensate for the 7th year rest. But if you don't know these things, the 7th year rest of the land will still work. Being forbidden to Worship other gods was also practical, in the sense that two or more opposing religions, in a wild irrational time, will not allow one people to get along as well. Religion is one of those things that gets emotional. There will also be those who will see an opportunity for a power grab, feeding the irrationality for their own gains. Having one faith for the group circumvents an easy path that can be used to feed dissociation. Once a rational structure and understanding forms in culture, the irrationality of religious debate is more peaceful and won't disrupt the culture. Let us look at homosexuals and other sexual behavior, but at a time before modern medicine. A good experiment, would be to simulate those times, to see if what they came up with was based on practical decisions. They did not have science and medicine like we have today, nor did they necessarily understanding the cause and effect of STD's. The experiment would need to take away all the modern medical prosthesis, such as medicines for STD's, etc. What we would do is allow all possible sexual behavior at the beginning of the experiment. We then let nature take its course in a green way. When the STD's and AIDS thin the herd, what types of behavior would be left standing? To maintain this natural result (nature took her course), rather than redo this experiment for every generation, as though this is random and not predictable, they made the steady state of nature, the law of the land. Maybe in modern times, we can take perpetuate any behavior, since we can cheat mother nature with synthetic drugs. But then again, religion has humans above the animals, so the path of mother nature was not meant to be the final path for humans.

Atheists can be as irrational as anyone. The image of the atheist being rational is not exactly the entire story, by atheist design. For example, animals are not rational, yet this is the atheist gold standard for human behavior. How can a rational person, use an irrational entity as the basis for behavior, and call that being rational? Religion works under the assumption that humans are higher than animals and therefore should use a higher standard for behavior. Based on all observable evidence, the human mind allows humans to go faster, fly higher, sing louder, etc. than any animal. Human higher than animal is supported by the data, not by atheist irrationality. The atheists need to dwell on the God issue, since this is the best place to show rational decision and based on the data. As long as they stay away from other questions, most people won't look too deep and won't see the irrationalities. Say we work under the assumption humans are suppose to use animal behavior. If we look at animal behavior the data says two things. It shows us the physical dynamics of the behavior. It also shows us the practical limits used by the animals. The second half of the data is ignored since even if animals do X, there is a limit. Religion would call human renditions of animals that exceed the natural limits, acting like a beast. The atheist beast can't see the data., but will shift the argument back to God to avoid addressing their irrationality.

The answer has to do with an exothermic output caused by the lowering of gravitational potential. The original cloud of stella gas has a very high level of entropy or disorder. The force of gravity lowers this high level of entropy by increasingly restricting the matter into zone(s) of space/time. The result is a release of the energy that was in the higher starting entropy. This energy output increases the entropy elsewhere within the system and shows up as rotations and orbits. An orbit means kinetic energy that can counter gravity; acts like pseudo-antigravity. Once the system reaches steady state, inertia within the motion keeps the orbits and rotations going, unless they are acted upon by a force.

Random information is connected to entropy. Entropy needs energy or it can't increase. Throwing dice involves the addition of some form of energy. If we stop adding energy to the dice, whatever side the dice fell previously, is the final top we would see. To further drive the random dice process, we need an energy source. For a computer, how many watts of energy does it take to run a random number generator and will it work without energy? If you look at the human mind, there is an energy connection to information processing. The unknown creates a tension or potentiates the mind. The primitive fear of novelty is one irrational way the tension of the unknown is expressed in the short term. The potential within the tension can not only cause the entropy of primitive irrationality, but it can also cause the mind to generate random explanations to help lower the tension. The potential creates the energy needed to increase the entropy. The best explanations lower potential. For example, I walk in the woods and see a new animal I have never seen. There is an immediate excitement due to the potential in the tension. Within this tension, the brain is trying to associate the animal with my memory but can't overlap anything. I might then try to explain this new animal by equating features to other animals that I know. This helps, somewhat. Someone with me says, that is a "so and so". Since the unknown has been resolved, the tension is resolved. The entropy of my mind lowers since there is less energy for entropy. In the chemical world of biology, there are also tensions and potentials. Once a potential is set, we have the energy needed for the entropy within chemical brain storming, such as mutations. The brain works the way it does, because it is an extension of biochemistry. It is not unique to chemistry but simply extrapolates the energy/entropy laws. .

If you look at natural selection, this is based on lowest potential. For example, if the food source is high in a tree, natural selection will favor those animals which can get the food with the least expenditure of energy. This may mean a longer neck or the ability to climb, both of which allow the result with the least waste of energy. A short neck needs to work harder, while poor climbing skills means more falling and injury. If we take 1000 random genetic information changes, geared around this food in the tree potential, the most efficient will have natural selection. The misinformation in the DNA, will be removed from nature by selective disadvantage. In human culture, this may not always be true, since humans can "lie" and "spin"; misinformation of the potentials. For example, the smart consumer wishes to spend their money efficiently. The used car salesman will spin the quality of the junk car to make it look like this is a good deal. The consumer acts on this misinformation, as being real, to create an efficiency in their mind, but an inefficiency in reality. This does not happen in nature, since nature does not spin. Selective advantage uses the reality of the lowest environmental potential to help sort random mutation information.

The resistance has to do with emotional thinking. Emotions can create and/or reinforce thoughts. Fear helps to narrow the mind down to the immediate short term, because this emotion is designed for an immediate action and resolution. This is why long term data trends, that show natural global warming/cooling are hard to see, by the those who fear immediate risk. As an analogy, you are hungry. At that moment an earthquake happens. The immediacy of fear will trump the hunger and all thoughts of food. One will begin to think thoughts that help one act on the fear. One may then run out of the house and go outside. The fear of man-made global warming causes many to think and act within the immediacy of the fear, making longer term calm thinking, such as the natural cycles of the earth, harder to register. Such ideas are not attached to the immediacy of fear and get ignored. What I would like to see is a discussion of the good side of global warming. Not all places on earth will see gloom and doom. This summer in New England was one of the warmest, with vacationers and local farmers both having the best year in a long time. This discussion will neutralize some of the fear, so the amount of data one can see and discuss will be greater. It is like someone from California feeling an earth quake tremor. They have learn to balance the fear, with calculated objectivity. There one might continue to make dinner. Such positive side discussions, by lowering fear, remove the urgency of fear, and get pushed aside, by those who benefit by the fear. They don't want the mind to stray from the fear and its induced focus on the narrowest data set. It is easier to scare someone than to settle them down to calm objectivity. This should not be an emotional issue, unless emotions are being used to help narrow the mind and trump objectivity.

The nucleotide triphosphate are the monomers used for the genetic material. These are energy rich materials, due to the triphosphate end. Proteins can utilize this triphosphate energy, via an active group, for example to make ADP from ATP. Say we tried to feed the first replicators, its needed monomer triphosphate s, in the presence of a simple proteins with active -OH groups. That could means loss of triphosphate energy for replicator synthesis. The proteins could render the RNA monomers inactive and more difficult to react on the replicators. The proteins would have natural selection, in this triphosphate energy competition, since they form in ways replicators can't disrupt. They then flow nearby the energy source and mess up the replicators, for their own energy needs.

General relativity is connected to what had been formerly known as gravity and the gravitational force. Here is a scenario. Say a cloud of stella gas was forming a new star due to gravity. As time goes on, the mass of the star is increasing at an accelerating rate. This means the gravitational force of the star is accelerating. Does the acceleration of the acceleration of the gravitational force, due to the mass of the star accelerating, impact the results of GR? Does GR break down when we have an acceleration of a gravity acceleration? Would we need to do an iteration method to approximate this, or do the GR equations make provisions for this reality event? I am not being difficult, just curious.

Geological time scales are not measured in years, but over very long periods of time. Short term chatter, in long term data, is part of the average. As an analogy, the earth is like a huge ship that takes a long time to make a u-turn. While the huge tanker ship is turning, the wind/waves might change and thereby alter the rate at which the turn is being made. If we look at the turn, second to second, it may appear the ships captain is changing his mind. But if we look at the longer term, the ship continued to turn, even though this short term perturbation may have appeared to the contrary. What got us all excited, was nothing but data chatter in the long term curve. For example, going from the last ice age to the present, was not a day to day, or second to second, continuous temperature rise. The data has chatter, which averaged a temperature rise over a long period of time. If we target only a small sample of this long term data, we can misrepresent the turn of the good ship earth. For example, if we could find 100 years out of 1million that show a cooling trend, and use only this data, one can come to the wrong conclusion the earth was turning back to the ice age. In reality, it was only the wind shifting, as the good ship earth kept turning. Out of 5 billions years of the good ship earth, we focus on the wind change of 100 years and call this the direction of the good ship earth. One is not allowed to show the longer terms trends of the last ice age, since this is not conducive to the hype. We need to focus on the wind change and infer the captain changed his mind. Fear helps this since the nature of fear is to focus the brain on the immediate present and not longer time scales.

Scientists are trained to be experts in their fields. This means they know a lot about those things under the umbrella of their chosen field. However, they know far less, by comparison, with respect to all the other fields of expertise. Religion may not be their strong suit of expertise, and therefore their opinion is more like that of a layman. If a physicist commented on evolution, this is not the same as an evolutionary expert. The layman has more freedom to speculate, since he is less aware of all the data, which restricts the opinions of the evolutionary expert. One trick to make the layman look like he is the real expert, is to use prestige. The singer with a number 1 hit, may appear to other layman, like he is an expert on global warming, since one assumes he is important, skilled, held up and well paid, so we need to listen. But due to the nature of expertise, he is really an expert song writer, and not an expert meteorologists. We really should consult the experts in the field if the goal is higher understanding. If we wish to be told what we want to hear, so we run with the herd, chose a charismatic layman. What would happen if I said, one does not have to be an expert in science, to define important ideas of science? That is irrational, but it would still be a good tactic if my goal was to push my own layman agenda for whatever reason. The agnostic scientists are probably the only ones who think and not just parrot the atheist party booklet. They leave the option open since they understand their own limits and don't pretend to be an expert in an area where they lack proper credentials.

One of the problems is, the topic is religion, yet religious proof is not allowed. For a religious person, this might be quotes from spiritual sources of religious expertise. These source might be people who spent their life pondering these things, like any other expert. There is wisdom there. The analogy is a scientist going to a religion site, to a topic called science, to discuss science. This seems reasonable. However, once he gets there he not be allowed to use any scientific proof due to site rules. How irrational is that. It give the impression of race fixing, so the home team does not have to think or work. The topic then degenerates to name calling, since this is more allowable than a violation of the home team rule advantage.

I have a possible scientific way to address this. For the sake of argument, let us assume God is an abstract thought. According to other topics in this site, language is the foundation needed for humans to think or one needs language to think. If we assume God is an abstract thought, the level of language needed to express a God abstraction would need to be fairly advanced. Unlike tangible things like dog, walking, triangle, which only require a single word, an abstraction like god would need more language, since it would not be provable by direct experience. One would need more advanced language to help skate around the lack of sensory input and transfer the abstraction, fully. The scientific study would be to compare language development in early man, to time of the inception of a viral god abstraction, to see if there was enough language at that time express this abstraction. If language was too thin, there would have been the need for something tangible. For example, we can train an ape sign language. He/she might be able to understand boy, girl, simple math like 1,2, triangle, square, verbs like run, talk, and adjectives like red, blue etc. We might even give it a toy shovel and sign the word dig. But is that enough language to abstract the concept god? If we pointed to a statue or photo of a God, since this is tangible, even the simple chimp sign language would be enough. But without anything tangible, how much language would the ape need to know to abstract a non tangible like the concept of god? If early man had only a simple language, not enough for such a viral abstraction as god, this would have required a tangible experience. The "word" god would then become the simple language term for this experience.

Light is not part of relative reference but is an absolute reference. If C is the same in all references, there must also be an absolute zero reference, since all the references would need a zero state that is not relative, so they can measure the same value of C. I theorized once that the generation and creation of photons, via matter, must occur at the zero reference or else all references would not be able to measure C, regardless of their reference.

Whether one believes in god or not, god is selective advantage. If you consider that the poorest people are often more religious and they have the fastest growing populations, doesn't Darwin and evolution associate selective advantage with mating rates? Atheists generate less offspring so this orientation is has a lower selective advantage according to evolution.

Thoughts can induce emotions and emotions can induce thoughts. For example, if someone used racial slurs against you, these thoughts can induce the emotion of anger. Some of this anger is conditioned and some is created by the emotion behind the persons words. Once your anger is activated, your thoughts might change and new thoughts might pop into your head, triggered by and connected to the emotion. You many call them names. These thoughts may induce their anger, etc., As an example of the an individual loop, it is a rainy day and someone feels down and blue. Because they feel down, thoughts of depressing things might come to their mind. As they think about these things, they may start to feel even more depressed. Because of the relationship between emotions and emotional thinking, there are two basic approaches that can one use to break an emotion/thought loop. One can change their feelings or one can change the thoughts that are induce by the feelings. For example, I may eat chocolate to feel better. With my emotions altered into positive delight, my thoughts might change. The change of feelings can also be done with drugs, to feel better. The other approach is to change the thoughts so the emotional loop changes or breaks. For example, counting to ten, when angry, does not make any room in your head for the anger thoughts to develop, often breaking the anger loop. One possible difference between psychological and emotional is where to break the loop; thoughts or emotions.

I started this topic in the religious forum because it is something both religion and atheism approach differently and both often fall short. In a symbolic sense, the animal is natural instincts, not just in terms of natural instinctive functionality, but also in terms of natural limits. The beast is a human modification of the natural animal, which through conscious or unconscious contrivance and/or learning either distorts the natural functionality and/or exceeds it. Religion is aware of the beast and might at times restrict the natural animal to avoid the beast. The atheist is aware of the natural animal, through science, and to make sure the natural animal gains expression, does not fully consider all the aberrations of the beast. For example, religion may call gluttony a sin to avoid the excesses of the beast. But the average Joe, not knowing what are the natural limits, may repress even the natural animal. The atheist knows eating is natural so will counter this, but it will come up with dozens reasons someone is not a beast, even if they eat outside the range natural. If you look at gay. This may be natural in terms of functionality since many animals do this. What are the limits, which when exceeded, turn a gay animal into a beast? Religion will throw out the natural baby with the bestial bathwater, while the atheist will keep the bestial bathwater, to protect the natural baby. T

Say you were asked to come up with a brand new design for a cell phone. Since this is an open request, there are many possible angles to try. Since your final design also has to be up to a high standard, it will take time to brain storm all the possibilities, narrow these down, develop a handful of alternatives, and then pick one for optimization. As an alternative, say the request is to develop only design X, the process is much faster. The point of this is say, hypothetically, DNA and RNA are the default genetic materials of life. They are very similar. That means the physical process needed to develop the genetic material does not have to try infinite things. It simply needs to perfect the default template material. A default improves the odds and speeds the process. As an analogy, when the universe was first developing solar fusion (when no star were yet around), it was not a long winded random process of trying endless combinations until a good method for fusion appears. The laws of physics default a method for fusion. This allowed fusion to appear quickly. There are no other genetic materials we know of besides RNA and DNA. The rest are speculation. If these two are the default, the goal is more direct. It is not like the laws of nature don't already predefine defaults, everywhere. When the water molecule was being created for the first time, it was not an random process of trying different atoms, placing them in the lines, circles, squares and crosses. The default H2O occurred immediately.