EXPLORING the Origin of Life and Conscience !

[truthmostcom]

Each newborn's life, like the flower of Spring, is full of freshness and imagination. We can't resist asking: for whom the flowers of life are blossoming? Different from other types of lives, human being has the conscience of seeking fairness. Where is the origin of conscience? Sometimes we feel the unknown loneliness, and sometimes we are shrouded with the fear of exploring the unknowns. What is the origin of loneliness and fear?

 

Very lucky, these questions have simple answer, so simple that everyone can personally prove the answer with a simple piece of computer software which disassembles galaxy patterns! Only when we find the answers to these questions, will human beings truly enter the brilliant stage of mature youth. The past history of human is the stage of growing infant so generously nurtured that we thought it were granted.

 

From where flows the physical food to nurture the infant and from where flows the spiritual nutrition to mature the youth? The answer is: from the embracing universe, where we gain the knowledge of truth.

 

Today, human finds rich and colorful material, such as growth-promoting agricultural crops, synthetic clothes, telephone, television, internet, artificial organs, and so on. With a review of human history, we know that modern revolution of science, industry and commerce started from our recognition of a heavenly truth that Earth revolves around the sun. Galileo observed the truth when turning his telescope up to heaven. Kepler summarized the law of planetary revolution with the data of observation. Newton discovered calculus and his mechanics based on Kepler's law. Calculus and Newtonian mechanics are the foundation of all modern sciences! Therefore, modern revolution of science, industry and commerce originated from the discovery of the truth that Earth revolves around the sun. The story of human is not finished!

 

Fortunately, human is about to enter the mature stage of youth, and its spiritual sustenance roots also at the heaven. Sun is just a star, which is a component of the galaxy known as Milky Way. There are countless galaxies in the universe. Each galaxy consists of millions of stars as well as other minor components like planets, dusts. Because galaxies are the most basic and independent components of the universe, their pattern recognition should drop a hint at the meaning of human life and distill the dew to moisten our spiritual thirsty.

 

Galaxies are much larger than the solar system. Light travels from the sun to Earth in eight minutes, and travels from one end of the Galaxy to the other in some hundred thousand years (light travels 300,000 km in a second). Although unimaginably large, thousands of galaxies are taken of images with telescopes. Galaxies demonstrate exceptionally simple and orderly patterns. This shows that the truth of the universe should be exceptionally simple too.

 

Independent galaxies present very regular patterns. They are either three-dimensional ellipticals or planar spirals. Ellipticals are very clean while spirals contain dusts which nurture new stars. The life period of stars in spiral galaxies is much shorter. This software of disassembling galaxy patterns deals with spiral galaxies only. Images of spirals with near-red light show that every spiral galaxy is mainly a disk with its light density decreasing exponentially outwards along the radial direction from the galaxy center (that is, disk center). Therefore, we call them exponential disks. There are other minor or weak structures in spiral galaxies. However, we have only two types of spiral galaxies: the ones with the additional bar structures are called barred spirals while the ones without any apparent bar are called normal spirals. Spiral galaxies gain their name by the fact that they present more or less spiral structures, known as arms. The way the arms bend are understood: the angle between the bending direction and the disk radial direction at each position is constant along the arm. A curve which bends in this way is called logarithmic curve. Therefore, the arms in normal spiral galaxies are called logarithmic arms.

 

Now we know that galaxy patterns are exceptionally simple. This poses a question: are the exponential disks and logarithmic arms a coincidence? If not, their correlation must present some clue to the meaning of the universe! The year 2005 may be the starting point at which human entered the stage of mature youth, because the correlation between the exponential disks and the logarithmic arms was found in this year (we can even prove that the correlation is unique, see astro-ph/0510535 ).

 

The correlation is: the ratio of star densities (light densities) on both sides of the logarithmic curve is constant along the curve. Such proportionality is called the universal justice of the universe. The force of proportionality is called the universal justice force. The universal justice (force) is the origin of both human life and human conscience. Below we will first present the universal creation principle based on the universal justice force, and then we present its supporting evidences as far as possible.

 

(A) Absolute justice: the distribution of matters in the universe is uniform throughout the space, and constant with time. A universe satisfying the absolute justice is a dead one. Real universe does not satisfy the absolute justice.

 

(B) The weaker condition of absolute justice is the proportionality. That is, the ratio of densities on both sides of a curve is constant along the curve. This is exactly the universal justice force which forms countless galaxies in the universe. The resulting distributions of matters, i.e., galaxies, are called harmonic structures or harmonic patterns.

 

© With the condition of universal justice being gradually weakened and more complicated conditions of harmony standing out, the smallest scale of structure which nurtures human life, i.e., the Earth's environment, came to presence!

 

(D) The price for the change with time of any thing is that its existence is finite. That is, it has a beginning and an end, the most basic characteristic of life.

 

(E) The damage at any level or scale of any harmonic condition will result in a shorter life period of the thing involved.

 

Some of the most important evidences which support the universal justice force and the universal creation principle are listed as follows:

 

1. The only possibility that exponential disks coexist with logarithmic arms is the existence of universal justice force. That is, the ratio of densities on both sides of a curve is constant along the curve. The resulting distribution of matter is called harmonic distribution, or harmonic structure.

 

2. Arms are not harmonic structures. They are disturbance waves to the harmonic structures. The disturbance reveals the direction of logarithmic curves. Astronomical observations indicate that arms come with stars of shorter life, and present dust which nurtures new life. It is very interesting that we live inside an arm of Milky Way. This proves the above-mentioned principle of universal creation (E).

 

3. Is it possible to generalize the logarithmic curves in normal spirals yet keep logarithmic curvature at far distance from the galaxy centers? The answer is yes, but there is only one generalized solution. Applying the universal justice force to the generalized curves, we see that the resulting harmonic structure is no longer the exponential disk with bright disk center. Instead we get a pair of symmetric handles of camelback-shape. Adding the symmetric handles to the exponential disk, we get the pattern of barred spiral galaxy! Actual barred spirals contain two or even three pairs of symmetric handles. These symmetric handles are aligned, forming elongated bar. If one pair of symmetric handles are located far from the galaxy center while others are much close to the center then the outmost handles can be seen as isolated on galaxy patterns. This is the case because nearly one fifth of barred spiral galaxies present isolated symmetric handles. This further supports the existence of universal justice force. We know that there are only two solutions of planar harmonic distributions: one is exponential disk and the other is symmetrical handles. On the other hand, there are only two types of spiral galaxies: one is normal spirals and the other is barred spirals. This is the further evidence of universal justice force.

 

4. Consider three-dimensional reciprocal curves, i.e., the cross curves of orthogonal spherical surfaces. Application of universal justice force to the curves leads to the harmonic structure of elliptical galaxies (astro-ph/0510536). This is an important evidence of universal justice force.

 

5. It is impossible for disturbance waves to form in the space of the above-mentioned cross curves. Indeed, there is no arm-like structure found in ellipticals. Therefore, elliptical galaxies are very clean, with no dust to nurture new stars, and their stars have longer lives. This further proves the universal creation principle.

 

6. Assuming that the spatial distribution of matters is uniform at the greater scales than galaxies but the density changes with time, we will find that the entire universe has a beginning and an end. Such a simple model of the universe is able to explain cosmic redshift, Hubble's Law and other basic astronomical facts (astro-ph/0605213). This once again supports the universal principle of creation.

 

7. Galaxies and the universe are harmonic distributions of matters. But they are damaged at small scales and replaced by more complicated harmonic laws. There eventually came the formation of the Earth's environment which appears to be random or chaotic. However, it is the most harmonic paradise which hosts the advanced lives of human. It might be the only lonely paradise in the universe!

 

8. Why is the solar system planar? Why does the distribution of its planets meet Bode law? Why do its planets spin in the similar directions to the one of solar rotation? Why do the axes of rotation and revolution of Earth make an angle of about 24 degrees, a necessary condition to maintain four seasons and sustain lives on Earth? These advanced harmonic conditions need your exploration!

 

9. It will be a brilliant scientific result if people can prove that the universal justice force takes the form of Newtonian universal gravity in the case of single star (single body). In fact, Newtonian theory is only applicable to the system of one or two bodies. For the system of three or more bodies which have similar masses like stars, Newtonian theory and all other theories have no answer for their patterns! But people insist on the application of these theories to the description of galaxies as well as the whole universe, in exactly the same way that people believed the sun as well as the whole universe had revolved around the Earth. Of course, this endeavor is unsuccessful and people resort to the assumption that the vast majority of the universe is some magical yet never-observable dark matter, dark energy and so on.

 

........................

[Zephir]

My idea is, the origin of life is just a continuation of complexity evolution of inorganic matter. The particles of matter are moving like amoebas through density gradients of vacuum foam, sniffing for food, while avoiding of obstacles. As such, they exhibit a quite conscious behavior, despite of their simplicity. The particle, which is moving through complex field of interactions between many other particles is basically solving the same optimization problems, like the people who are deciding, whether to buy a food or flowers first, when walking around street. Such decision requires to have certain intelligence. We can say, the elementary particles aren't so stupid, as they appear at the first sight, they're just perfectly adopted to live in their environment.

 

 

By my understanding the elementary particles are like small living creatures, exhibiting a sexual dimorphism: the bosons are males, whereas the fermions are females. They've a genetic information encoded at the spiral structure inside body like other living organisms, they're tactile and sensitive to heat and mechanical stimulation like other critters. In general, the she-fermions are more communicative, usually rather attractive having mass, they love company and most of all they prefer to exchange the energy with bosons (...you know, womens..).

 

Instead of this the bosons are a movable, just a bit slippery and volatile particles, they're don't like sitting' at place, moving instead like a regular lady killers from one she-fermion to another. Whenever the boson have a sufficient energy, it succeeded with female meeting and is allowed to transfer its energy and exchange the information with her. During such collision a new small particles can be born, often having the structure and property signatures of both the parents.

 

Both kind of particles have appeared briefly after universe inflation like eukaryota due to spontaneous symmetry breaking of genetic information density with the close analogy of Precambrian species explosion as the result of sexual dimorphism evolution during Earth cooling (Cryogenian period). Until this time, just a single type of tiny particles have occurred, rather primitive one (so called "gravitons") which has behaved both as male, both as female, having breded just by division like bacterias and procaryota with exact biological evolution analogy.

 

From this point of view it seems, the atom nuclei are rather globular colonies of such small creatures, like Globe animalcule (Volvox globator). In accordance with this I'd prefer the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis of life formation in the coacervate foam on the surface of prehistoric oceans. Another viable mechanism is formation of life inside of foamy structure of water clusters at relatively low temperature, but high pressure. This mechanism enables to move the beginning of life evolution to the cosmic space.

 

 

The animation above is illustrating the conceptual similarity between nested foam formation during supercritical fluid condensation and the inverse micelles formation on the phase interface of different fluids. The biological membranes forming the tissue foam inside of organism are just a complex space-time branes, forming the vacuum.

[Phi for All]

Due to speculations which take this thread outside accepted science, it has been moved from Astronomy to Speculations. No Galileo-like persecution is intended and your understanding is greatly appreciated.

[Zephir]

Due to speculations which take this thread outside accepted science, it has been moved from Astronomy to Speculations. No Galileo-like persecution is intended and your understanding is greatly appreciated.

I'm just demonstrating different analogies and logical connections. Which analogies are accepted here - only those, which were published somewhere else already? Is the parroting of foreign ideas the only way of communication allowed here?

 

We should realize, the question of origin and consciousness is pretty opened even in mainstream science, therefore every idea here should be presented as a pseudoscience and speculation. By such way, every speculation about opened questions should be considered as a pseudoscience and the "true science" has nothing to solve, after then...

 

Such approach therefore denies the proclaimed scientific state of this forum. It has nothing to do with Galileo persecution, but tampering of science status in naming of his forum.

[iNow]

Such approach therefore denies the proclaimed scientific state of this forum. It has nothing to do with Galileo persecution, but tampering of science status in naming of his forum.

If your work were truly scientific and worthy of attention, you'd be publishing it in peer-reviewed journals. What you're doing here is coming into an online community and proclaiming unsupported speculations as fact and getting upset when you are reminded that they are not.

 

What you should use fora like SFN for is to clarify parts of your ideas about which you are unclear, asking questions and learning from others where you have gaps so you CAN go on to publish... This isn't likely to happen if you keep whining and complaining instead of remaining focussed on the meat of your ideas.

 

So, I say again, where's the beef?

[Zephir]

...If your work were truly scientific and worthy of attention, you'd be publishing it in peer-reviewed journals...

This may be good just for scientists, while the Aether theory is for good even for the rest of people.

...asking questions and learning from others where you have gaps so you CAN go on to publish...

Yep, I'm gradually improving these ideas, so they may become useful for these people conversely. The purpose of AWT is just to make the reality understandable even without math.

[Phi for All]

By such way, every speculation about opened questions should be considered as a pseudoscience and the "true science" has nothing to solve, after then...

We mean for this sub-forum to be a place for two types of non-accepted science, Pseudoscience AND Speculations. We leave it up to the reader to decide which he/she is viewing.

 

Alternatively, the OP can clearly state that he/she will be Speculating about a certain hypothesis they've formed and would like to discuss it and analyze the idea from a serious scientific perspective.

 

Ideas that are based on faulty logic or have no math to support them or offer no better solution to accepted theory are Pseudoscience, and while it is interesting to talk about, one goes too far in saying that it challenges accepted science. You can't challenge science without using scientific method. Your idea may be a step in the right direction but you need rigor, attention to detail and logic if you are to be taken seriously, and a teensy bit of humility and skepticism to avoid being ridiculed.

[Zephir]

..Ideas that are based on faulty logic or have no math to support them or offer no better solution to accepted theory...

Does it mean, the Darwin theory, which was based on good logic, but it had no math during two hundred years should be considered as a pseudoscience by such criterions?

..You can't challenge science without using scientific method...

I like your arguments very much, because they're helping me to localize the problem. How we can challenge a science with using of scientific method? Every sectarian community is limited just because of its rules. It's like the attempt to challenge the Holy Church with using of a Christians theology...

[insane_alien]

Does it mean, the Darwin theory, which was based on good logic, but it had no math during two hundred years should be considered as a pseudoscience by such criterions?

 

It did not contain math because it was qualitative rather than quantitative and not based on physics or chemistry. it did however contain logical deductions.

 

your aether wave hypothesis concerns the physics of the universe and therefore must also be quantitative as well as qualitative. therefore it must contain maths and therefore predictions. these should be falsifiable and if falsified will say your hypothesis is wrong.

[ajb]

 

your aether wave hypothesis concerns the physics of the universe and therefore must also be quantitative as well as qualitative. therefore it must contain maths and therefore predictions. these should be falsifiable and if falsified will say your hypothesis is wrong.

 

I will second insane_alien.

 

Also, please drop the church rants. It gets tiresome.

[Zephir]

..your aether wave hypothesis concerns the physics of the universe...

We are in the thread name "EXPLORING the Origin of Life and Conscience". No formal deductions are expected here, because even the subject has no formal description developed yet.

 

Galileo has proposed his heliocentric model with only qualitative proofs. By your fabricated criterions (where we can found the evidence of it?) the heliocentric model would be hypothesis.

 

Einstein has proposed his special relativity theory in 1905 without any proposal, how such theory can be tested experimentally in his time. By your fabricated criterions it simply means, it was just a hypothesis. BTW, the first test of special relativity was based on muon decay by Rossi and Hall in 1941 - until then, no experimental evidence of STR was given.

 

As you can see, your criterions were falsified by two most significant examples of scientific theories at all.

.. please drop the church rants. It gets tiresome...

Why? Such example are demonstrating pretty well, how some mainstream science proponents converted into close minded sectarians, who are fabricating criterions, which wouldn't allow even Galileo or Einstein to present their findings as scientific theories!

 

The Characteristics of Pathological skepticism:

 

1. The tendency to deny, rather than doubt.

2. Double standards in the application of criticism

3. The making of judgments without full inquiry

4. Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate

5. Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks

6. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof

7. Pejorative labelling of proponents as "promoters", "pseudoscientists" or practitioners of "pathological science."

8. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof

9. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims

10. Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence

11. Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it

12. Tendency to dismiss all evidence

13. Organized skepticism tends to be automatically pathological

 

The bolded criterions will apply even to your case, ladies (..and gentlemans).

[ajb]

We should be careful about hijacking threads and turning the posts to the "battle of Zephir against the evil nazi (but church going) scientists".

 

Start another thread if you want to rant away...

[Zephir]

...we should be careful about hijacking threads and turning the posts to the "battle of Zephir against the evil nazi (but church going) scientists"....

You're not required to apply biased criterions to my ideas, which leads to such discussion undeniably. I'm presenting here my ideas like others and I'm not interested, if you're considering them as a scientific theory or not. I'm only interested, if you can invalidate them by some relevant logical arguments. Even nonscientific theories can exist without problem and labeling them nonscientific doesn't disprove anything.

 

I've a much to say about topic subject, as I already did. Do you want to discuss the theories of life origin?

 

If not, what are you doing here at all? Why I should introduce another topic?

[ajb]

You're not required to apply biased criterions to my ideas, which leads to such discussion undeniably. I'm presenting here my ideas like others and I'm not interested, if you're considering them as a scientific theory or not. I'm only interested, if you can invalidate them by some relevant logical arguments. Even nonscientific theories can exist without problem and labeling them nonscientific doesn't disprove anything.

 

I've a much to say about topic subject, as I already did. Do you want to discuss the theories of life origin?

 

If not, what are you doing here at all? Why I should introduce another topic?

 

Ok, go ahead, I apologise. I don't think I have any more to say about anything you post.

[Phi for All]

Does it mean, the Darwin theory, which was based on good logic, but it had no math during two hundred years should be considered as a pseudoscience by such criterions?

Darwin never posted here. I'm not sure what the guidelines for pseudoscience on an internet forum was in his day. His theory has grown to become more accepted because rigor was applied to it. We don't discuss Darwinian theory much anymore. We discuss evolution.

 

I like your arguments very much, because they're helping me to localize the problem. How we can challenge a science with using of scientific method? Every sectarian community is limited just because of its rules. It's like the attempt to challenge the Holy Church with using of a Christians theology...

I think you will always have trouble with science if you don't understand how to apply it's methodology. You claim we are limited by its rules but those rules keep us from basing our knowledge on faulty premises.

 

You are like a builder who ignores his foundation because he has found a new way to make the roof more beautiful. And when others point out that the building will collapse you keep shouting and pointing at the beautiful roof and telling us we're too hidebound.

 

AND you keep shouting and pointing at your roof when someone else is trying to build his own house, even when they're trying to listen to the people who've been building sturdy buildings that have been tested and proven over a great deal of time. Your roof may be better but unless you support it correctly, its difficult to trust that it will remain standing.

[Zephir]

...your roof may be better but unless you support it correctly, its difficult to trust that it will remain standing...

I'm not requiring you to trust anything. If you don't believe, the AWT concept is relevant view of reality, you can disprove it. If you believe so, you can use mine arguments or to collect other ones.

 

Is up to you, if you'll believe more logic, or the math, which is based on such logic. But please, don't try to make an illusion, the people are believing in evolution just because it has some math built-in recently. This is simply BS.

 

The people are believing in logic, and the math cannot change the logic, on which it was applied - or it would become a circular reasoning. The predicate logic is even fundamental base of math rigor. If some theorem doesn't fulfills the logical rules, it's considered as a conjecture.

 

The contemporary scientists are adhering on math, because they're believing, it enables them to cover a logical holes in their theories before publicity. Such approach is a sort of new theology. But you cannot reveal a logical errors in theories by using of math, but only with by using of logic again.

 

Believe it or not, the logic always goes first and it has last speech. For example, who cares about beauty of geocentric model and the complexity of its mathematical predictions, if it doesn't fills the trivial logic of Venus phases or stellar parallax? If the logic isn't working, whole the math based on it is wrong as well, sorry.

 

And this is why I'm using a logic in my reasoning. And this is why the scientists are calling for math, although the math can just support the underlying logic, it can never deny it. Literally speaking, they're under naive hope, the math derivation of Venus phase can changes the logic in Venus phase sequence and/or it will scramble the complexity of the subject enough to cover the problem in logic before publicity.

 

The contemporary scientists are sort of druids or medicinmans of modern era. They don't like to use a simple words, a simple explanation, the simple refusal of their theories the less. On the other hand, they're using a quite simple arguments against concurrent theories very often: "This logic lacks the math, therefore it's not science, therefore it doesn't belongs into the realm of scientific discussion at all."

 

Can you see the problem here? By such approach you can refute even the Darwin's or Galileo's arguments immediately. How is it possible, the contemporary intepretation of proclaimed "scientific" method can lead to refusal of arguments of these guys without problem? Something is rotten in the kingdom of Denmark...

 

So, if you're missing some math in AWT, try to refute its simplest logic first. After then you can ask for some more complex logic and try to refute it again. But not vice-versa, due the Occam's razor principle.

[YT2095]

Is up to you, if you'll believe more logic, or the math, which is based on such logic. But please, don't try to make an illusion, the people are believing in evolution just because it has some math built-in recently. This is simply BS.

 

I happen to function almost soley on Logic and despise maths!

I`m also an advocate of Evolution, it, in all probability is the most likely scenario of the existing ones.

it has Evidence that can be Demonstrated also, and within a single human lifespan (so you could indeed perform such demonstrations yourself).

 

where`s the BS in that???

[Zephir]

...where`s the BS in that...

You told ".. (Darwin's) theory has grown to become more accepted because rigor was applied to it..."

 

This is factual nonsense. Every math is based on logic, if this logic isn't working, then the whole math model cannot work as well. Therefore the development of formal model cannot make the underlying logic more or less valid. This is the consequence of causual hiearchy in derivation of complex logic from the simple one. In fact, such derivation can just introduce another mistakes, this is the reason, why we are trying to have theories as simple, as possible.

 

But from your stance follows, you're don't believing so. The blind reckoning of math models in theories is just a sort of false belief.

[YT2095]

you don`t half talk a lot of mumbo jumbo crap, eh!

 

now, if you`d like to readdress ALL of my post (in context)...

[Zephir]

...now, if you`d like to readdress ALL of my post.....

I've no problem with the rest of your post. On the contrary, the AWT makes the evolution an virtually universal paradigm. Not just the people or creatures are evolving, but even the stars and elementary particles are all under the same mechanism of evolution, based on random mutations and selection.

 

This is pretty strong concept and every evolutionist must be pleased by such conclusion.

 

But.

 

Such smooth causal evolution considers an existence of virtually unlimited amount of inertial matter and energy at the same time. Exactly this matter, which we are believing, it cannot evolve from anything else. Such matter and energy must be created. And such immense amount of matter can be only created by omnipotent being.

 

So what? We can see, the evolution and creation are both undeniable dual concepts of reality understanding. They cannot be separated each other. The evolution can never replace the creation concept. It requires it on the background, instead. The more evolution, the more creation will be required.

 

The AWT just makes such conclusion crystalline clear.

[YT2095]

 

Such smooth causal evolution considers an existence of virtually unlimited amount of inertial matter and energy at the same time. Exactly this matter, which we are believing, it cannot evolve from anything else. Such matter and energy must be created. And such immense amount of matter can be only created by omnipotent being.

 

or by a bigger Super nova?

we have Plenty of evidence (even stuff you can prove in a Home Lab with simple equipment) that with show that stars are made up of these elements essential to life.

you Really ought to apply Occams razor a little more often!

So what? We can see, the evolution and creation are both undeniable dual concepts of reality understanding. They cannot be separated each other. The evolution can never replace the creation concept. It requires it on the background, instead. The more evolution, the more creation will be required.

 

Why does this have to be the case, IMO the Only thing that Really needs to be reconciled is the LIFE Force factor, that has yet to be re-created.

[Zephir]

or by a bigger Super nova?

Inside the another, even larger Universe, and so on...

 

Power of conformity, addition, There's a 20% Chance we're living in the Matrix

 

[foodchain]

........................

 

I have a similar idea though a bit different. I think a lot of the footing life gets put on over anything else physical for the most part boils down to a lot of psychological issues rather then any real representation be it purely in formalism or empirically or a mix of the both.

 

If by simply reality that quantum mechanics governs chemical behavior then to deny its role in life is pointless. If by decoherence pointer states "reproduce" and come to represent the now even if time is but a imaginary descriptor of physical processes executing then many parallels I think can be drawn up. To study microbial life is vastly different then looking at say a human being, you deal with different variables and of course you have the cloudy debate as to what is life, as no absolute concrete definition exists yet.

 

I could speculate that all chemical species are simply just pointers really, or that the electron is, and why you get cosmic censorship or natural selection or any type of selection of shape of the environment is stuff in the form of subsystems interacting to produce the overall environment, such as at the big bang having stars at that point would be selected against, or impossible really until we progress a little further. As I think is accepted though for instance you had to have certain things before other things became reality, the neutron is not fundamental, yet it populates wildly in the universe, nor is a planet, or a galaxy for that matter, simply put suck out all the neutrons which are not fundamental.

 

My big question is I come to question exactly what are the real conservation laws, or is it the reality that we cant push hard enough against the environment to defeat such, maybe the universe as we know it currently is nothing more then a quantum period. The point I like to try to make about life is that its origin, structure, and function has to fall in line with the rest of the universe, such as even being able to understand or process light, or sound, or temperature, or for that matter get drunk. So if QM can model all chemical behavior the cracking of such would lead ultimately to how life came about, because life is a physical process much like nucleosynthesis or why it rains.

 

Physics I think should not come first, as in I do not appreciate that model. It like any field of science probably is buried under many fallacies, heck the higgs boson might not even exist then I am sure all chaos will come about. The point being is its collective human understanding, the evolution of life on a very reduced scale covers the evolution of matter/energy in some form or another interacting, we are not made of fairy dust, its not microbe then human, evolution or organic evolution is an evolution of matter/energy into what life is, this blazing simple point if amplified in study I think is so large it simply gets overlooked by people that easily become scared and or confused, or want to study simple things that are easily modeled and simply not evolve past such.

[lawsinium]

"My idea is, the origin of life is just a continuation of complexity evolution of inorganic matter. they exhibit a quite conscious behavior, despite of their simplicity. decision requires to have certain intelligence. We can say, the elementary particles aren't so stupid, as they appear at the first sight, they're just perfectly adopted to live in their environment. By my understanding the elementary particles are like small living creatures, exhibiting a sexual dimorphism: the bosons are males, whereas the fermions are females. They've a genetic information encoded at the spiral structure inside body like other living organisms. Instead of this the bosons are a movable, just a bit slippery and volatile particles, they're don't like sitting' at place, moving instead like a regular lady killers from one she-fermion to another. Whenever the boson have a sufficient energy, it succeeded with female meeting and is allowed to transfer its energy and exchange the information with her. During such collision a new small particles can be born, often having the structure and property signatures of both the parents."

 

Zephir, I just like to point out that your idea matches my theories about the evolution of creation. The paragraph above caught my attention, specifically with the following words or statements which I will put into questions so that you can provide me and your readers some concrete logical connections or answers, whether it is coming from your thought experiments or hard scientific ideologies.

 

1. Why do you say that life is a continuation of complexity evolution of inorganic matter? If this is so, then your theory will support my definition of life which is not only for living things but for non-living things too.

2. Why do you say that inorganic matter has behavior and intelligence ? Can you elaborate this more clearly by either analogies or experiences.?

3. How did you come up with this statement “a genetic information encoded at the spiral structure”, specifically the word spiral ? Do you have proof or models that will support your claims?

4. How is the transfer of energy and exchange of information takes place? Can you provide me a blow by blow scenario how this happen? Is this concept like how egg and sperm cells evolve?

 

BTW, during evolution everything tries to separate and reorganize again. As they organize, at a certain point in time, they make rules that are only good for their own group in order to survive.

 

You and I were probably indoctrinated by our teachers and with all the books we read.

 

Religious people were probably indoctrinated by the teaching of their church and their bible. And some people even grow long beard to imitate god. Or was it Abraham or Moses? (the first group of devotees or cult?)

 

The scientific community could probably indoctrinated by their scientific methodology and their scientific evidence. Trial and error is one of their methodologies. Will you buy a medicine that is a product of trial and error? They have accepted the big bang theory, but do they have supporting evidence that was gathered 13 billion years ago? And some people even grow gray hair to imitate Einstein. (the other group of devotees or cult?)

 

In science, a theory can not be accepted unless there is mathematical proof - a formula or an equation. So science is useless without mathematics. That is why proponents of this concept have the hand to classify if our work is a pseudoscience or speculation.

 

In religion, they do not care about this nonsense, they just believe in their Faith (well for me at least faith is better, because science destroys the world and the evolution of mankind, while religion simply destroys the evolution of "mind-kind", brainwashing?)

 

Maybe you might be interested on my thread about why things are paired. Think about it very deeply without just reading every words but what is behind each lines, like the way you will analyze my statement that” everything we see are all already of the past.

 

“The best journeys are not always in a straight lines.” Excerpt from the book Creation by Laws.

Edited August 16, 2008 by lawsinium

[Edtharan]

And some people even grow long beard to imitate god.

 

snip

 

And some people even grow gray hair to imitate Einstein.

These are called ad hominem arguments and are a logical fallacy.

 

but do they have supporting evidence that was gathered 13 billion years ago?

Yes. Masses of it. To name a few: Red Shifts, Cosmic Microwave Radiation, Star formation and life cycles, Galaxy Formation and Life Cycles, Relativity (both general and special versions), Quantum Mechanics...

 

And so on, pretty much all of science. And that if these were wrong, then other devices that use the principles would not work either, like GPS, Fibre Optics, Nuclear Power Stations, and so forth.

 

Trial and error is one of their methodologies. Will you buy a medicine that is a product of trial and error?

Yes, I would, especially instead of one that had never been tested at all, or that someone said I just needed faith for it to work.

 

Trial and error is about trying something and then if it doesn't work making adjustments and trying again, then repeating until it is shown that it will never work, or that you get it working.

 

So a medicine developed by trial and error would be one that actually works.

 

Also, science is not trial and error. It is about first observing a regularity (eg: That chewing some kinds of willow bark provide a small analgesic effect).

 

Then developing a theory that supports that observation (eg: That there is a chemical in the bark that has this effect).

 

And then testing that theory (eg: Trying each chemical in the bark for the analgesic effects).

 

This is how Aspirin was developed.

 

Also, science means that if you discover that your theory was wrong (eg: That the willow bark has magical properties), you either develop a new one, or modify the old one so that it better fits the observations, and then retest it.

 

In science, a theory can not be accepted unless there is mathematical proof - a formula or an equation. So science is useless without mathematics.

Science is about being precise in your predictions (results of the theory), and as Mathematics is pretty good at being precise, then it is used. Because it is such a useful tool it is therefore used fairly often and relied upon (the other thing is because it is reliable and science requires repeatability it also fits well).

 

Most carpenters have a hammer, so would you consider them suspicious because most of them have hammers? No.

 

A Hammer is a useful tool for a carpenter, so they tend to have them. Mathematics is a useful tool for science, so why do you consider it a problem for them to use a useful tool?

 

To outsiders (ie everyone but you), this looks like an unfounded prejudice. You can't find logical faults with their evidence or their conclusions from that evidence, so you attempt to make a strawman and ad hominem argument against them.