Is Life Inevitable?

[walkntune]

between 'spiritualists' and materialist rationalists

What does spiritualism have to do with energy and materialism?

A materialist rationalist is someone who just observes energy in a particular state of resistance!If this is false then pull the energy out of what ever it is you are observing and see what is left!

If you don't think energy is what substantiates life then try not eating for a few months and see what happens.Pull a plant out of the ground.

 

The question arose in my mind that with the millions of possible planets in millions of Galaxies, life would arise under suitable conditions anywhere.

Only where there is an energy source which would be part of suitable conditions.

 

Are we becoming so skeptical we can't even rationalize common sense?

[Mr Skeptic]

You can dance around the subject of how I came about my ideas or you can simply prove them wrong!

 

It doesn't matter how you came about your ideas, what matters is whether there is any evidence to support them. Then, if so, one might also see whether there is any evidence to refute it.

 

You can tell me" The truth does not exist" but how can you make such a statement make any logical sense?

 

Truth exists, but can you find it? Even in mathematics it has been proved that not all true things can be proved true.

 

Sorry I have an intuitive mind so if you find anything illogical in what I sense to be true then do the job of a skeptic and show it wrong!

 

But illogical things are unintuitive. Therefore you are not as intuitive as you say you are, if your intuition gives you illogical results.

 

Einstein said

 

and other than as opinion, nobody cares, because an argument from authority is invalid. Einstein gave proof of his theories. His opinions, he did not expect people to accept blindly, but rather as food for thought.

[Sisyphus]

Problem 1 is that you seem to think "intuitive" is the opposite of "rational," and is synonymous with "psychic."

[walkntune]

Well this is where you and a scientist part ways. Scientists search for what is not false; and when they have tried to find fault with a theory but cannot, start to presume it is true. They frequently search for things they hope not to find!

 

Yes you are right.

They frequently search for things they hope not to find!

This is where it becomes illogical.

This is why only intuition pushes science forwards!

This is not the method of Einstein nor Tesla!

Einstein disagreed with his colleagues even when their logic made perfect sense!

Sure he was wrong sometimes but it was the part that was right that helped push science along!

I believe in using a rational mind to all I observe to test to see of its true or not!

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

and other than as opinion, nobody cares, because an argument from authority is invalid. Einstein gave proof of his theories. His opinions, he did not expect people to accept blindly, but rather as food for thought.

 

As I clearly stated in all of my posts! My beliefs and thoughts!

If you can say life is inevitable with fact, than I am not so sure there would be this discussion!

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Problem 1 is that you seem to think "intuitive" is the opposite of "rational," and is synonymous with "psychic."

And your the one who keeps telling me what I seem to think!

I might have to study your psychic behavior!

[Sisyphus]

Einstein disagreed with his colleagues even when their logic made perfect sense!

 

The only time that happened, as far as I know, is when he was, in fact, wrong, with his famous "God does not play at dice" and related beliefs.

 

And your the one who keeps telling me what I seem to think!

 

Ok, so define what you mean by "intuition," please, and how it's different from the impression I got. If that's how it seemed to me, and that's not what you mean, then you need to communicate more clearly.

[walkntune]

Ok, so define what you mean by "intuition," please, and how it's different from the impression I got. If that's how it seemed to me, and that's not what you mean, then you need to communicate more clearly.

 

If I riddle you this, will you riddle me where my thoughts and beliefs about energy being a force of life and materialism being illogical?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Here is an example of Einsteins disagreements!

 

 

Einstein's intuition

 

Einstein is universally regarded as the greatest physicist of the 20th century. He alone was responsible for relativity and was a major contributor to quantum mechanics. These two theories have dominated twentieth century physics. Yet for most of his adult life Einstein was at odds with the majority of his colleagues about the nature of quantum mechanics. Was this disagreement simply a matter of different opinions or was something deeper involved? Einstein was an intuitive genius. He was of course intelligent, but by no means an intellectual genius. It is no accident that he was working in the patent office when he developed special relativity. He was not considered competitively qualified for a professorial appointment until he had revolutionized our understanding of time and space.

 

It is worth looking closer at this quarrel. Extroverted thinking, that dominates our culture including science, draws its energy from the external facts or experimental results. Quantum mechanics is extraordinarily successful at explaining those facts. The refinements that his colleagues made to the theory while Einstein was pursuing his futile quest for a more complete theory have made quantum mechanics, and specifically quantum field theory the most accurate theory man has ever developed by a wide margin. Certainly his colleagues had reason to complain when they accomplished so much and Einstein so little. Einstein respected the enormous achievement but felt we must start over.

 

There is no doubt that quantum mechanics has seized hold of a beautiful element of truth and that it will be a touchstone for a future theoretical basis in that it must be deducible as a limiting case from that basis, just as electrostatics is deducible from the Maxwell equations of the electromagnetic field or as thermodynamics is deducible from statistical mechanics. I do not believe that quantum mechanics will be the starting point in the search for this basis, just as one cannot arrive at the foundations of mechanics from thermodynamics or statistical mechanics(461)[20].

 

We must start over because you cannot derive a causal theory from a statistical one. Einstein had an inner vision or intuition about what was and was not a good fundamental theory. A theory that did not match that inner vision was sadly lacking no matter how successful it became. Quantum mechanics did not match this vision and no amount of doctoring it to cover a wider range of effects or achieve greater accuracy could help. Quantum field theory, which combines special relativity and quantum mechanics, was anathema to him.

 

Einstein never had a good word for the relativity version of quantum mechanics knows as quantum field theory. It successes did not impress him. Once in 1912, he said of the quantum theory the more successful it is, the sillier it looks(24)[41].

 

His colleagues, impressed by the enormous success of quantum mechanics, did not share his view. They understood how the theory fell short of what had been accepted principles for a physical theory. Their solution was to modify these principles. Thus we have a host of interpretations of quantum mechanics each with its own special metaphysics and new principles for a fundamental theory. For the extrovert the idea must succumb to the data. For the introvert it is the opposite. Neither principle works universally. That is why an opposition is needed.

 

Why do I insist that the idea will ultimately win out in this contest? It is the accumulation of intuitive problems with the theory. They are what make the theory look sillier the more successful it becomes. The problems are listed in Section 8.8. Beyond this intuition is able to consider possibilities that intellect cannot deal with. Intuition is always ready to start over. Intellect is loathe to do so because without its existing conceptual framework it is lost. It has nothing to orient itself with.

 

For intellect to proceed in physics it must have or work out the mathematics in some detail. Intuition can play with ideas at a looser level. Intuition can leave the conceptual framework of classical particles that quantum mechanics is trapped in. Without knowing the details it can match patterns and see where connections are possible in a different framework. Of course this process is far more error prone then a more narrow intellectual approach, but for many problems it is the only possible approach.

 

in·tu·i·tion (nt-shn, -ty-)

n.

1.

a. The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition. See Synonyms at reason.

b. Knowledge gained by the use of this faculty; a perceptive insight.

2. A sense of something not evident or deducible; an impression.

 

This is my understanding of intuition.

[HOMER-16]

(I think this thread went off topic...)

 

Ajb, sorry, what I took as you saying as 'Earth' like was:

 

Has water

 

Oxygen

 

Earth like temperature

 

Earth like gravity

 

etc, etc.

 

But I do believe it would be hard for there to be life on gas giants unless they were smaller and had less gravity... but that's about it. Everything else would just be crushed.

[Mr Skeptic]

This is where it becomes illogical.

This is why only intuition pushes science forwards!

 

Quite the opposite; failure to look for things you hope not to find makes you delusional. We do not do confirmation bias in science. If you look only for things you hope to find, you won't ever notice when you are wrong.

 

This is not the method of Einstein nor Tesla!

Einstein disagreed with his colleagues even when their logic made perfect sense!

Sure he was wrong sometimes but it was the part that was right that helped push science along!

I believe in using a rational mind to all I observe to test to see of its true or not!

 

It is indeed the methods of Einstein and Tesla, of any scientist really. What you are describing are the methods of Aristotle, of the ancient so called "natural philosophers". They thought that through intuition and logic they could deduce stuff and that experiments were totally unnecessary.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Indeed, though as everyone knows Einstein despised quantum mechanics, he nevertheless did a lot of work in it (as well as being one of the founders of it). People always seem to gloss over that little fact. See for example:

quantum-theory-albert-einstein-quotes.htm

Edited November 13, 2009 by Mr Skeptic
Consecutive posts merged.

[Phi for All]

Indeed, though as everyone knows Einstein despised quantum mechanics, he nevertheless did a lot of work in it (as well as being one of the founders of it). People always seem to gloss over that little fact. See for example:

quantum-theory-albert-einstein-quotes.htm

Very good point, Mr Skeptic. What would Einstein say about those who cherry pick his ideas only to justify what they hoped to find?

[walkntune]

Quite the opposite; failure to look for things you hope not to find makes you delusional. We do not do confirmation bias in science. If you look only for things you hope to find, you won't ever notice when you are wrong.

This kind of thinking does not lead from one theory to another!

You can only find fault in what you speculate once you have a speculation.

It is indeed the methods of Einstein and Tesla, of any scientist really

OK I just posted a whole article on Einstein and intuition. You can look at his many quotes as to his thoughts of it! I am not saying he didn't have any knowledge of scientific understanding because he used it to rationalize his intuition!

I know you can keep going down a rabbit trail and it's really a waste of our energy to argue this. This argument has been going on ever since introverts and extroverts have had different opinions!

I think energy is the substance of all creation and it works in all aspects for me even understanding this argument!

It's not important how I arrived at my conclusion(you said so yourself)

It doesn't matter how you came about your ideas, what matters is whether there is any evidence to support them. Then, if so, one might also see whether there is any evidence to refute it.

Everything I can possible observe is evidence to me to support my thoughts and ideas about energy!

I have been asking for the evidence to refute it. I can't find any!

[Mr Skeptic]

Everything I can possible observe is evidence to me to support my thoughts and ideas about energy!

I have been asking for the evidence to refute it. I can't find any!

 

Then your idea is worthless.

[walkntune]

Then your idea is worthless.

 

Reason being?

It might be worthless to your logic but I am not interested in your logic!

The reality around us cares nothing about your logic. It exists whether you are here to make it understandable in your logical mind or not.

I am interested in the world around me and how energy plays it's part.

It's supported by evidence! Look around!

Nothing refutes it!

Where is your logical proof!

I am interested in learning about the energy not your logic!

[Mr Skeptic]

Because if as you said, "Everything I can possible observe is evidence to me to support my thoughts and ideas about energy" then that means that your ideas are meaningless, they say nothing. That is the only way that everything you could possibly observe couldn't refute it. If you cannot answer the question, "What would, if observed, disprove my theory" then your theory isn't a theory -- if nothing can disprove it, it makes no predictions. If it makes no predictions, it is worthless. It doesn't matter how much sense it makes, you might as well use gibberish words for all the good it does in reality.

[walkntune]

My suggestion for you would be to not use the idea of" energy taking a least resistant path" to understand this reality we live in!

I have found a common denominator that works in all existence for me and I will not try to force this idea on you!

Worth is determined by the value we put on something.

If I say all of reality is subject to this idea of energy and you say it's worthless, who am I to make it of value to you.

If reality is subject to energy, then I say energy has more worth to reality then your logic.

As of now I am interested in what is around me and not what isn't!

It does make me smile though to know that we are as far apart as we possibly can be in an argument!

What you think is worthless is what I think is the only thing that exists.

Edited November 14, 2009 by walkntune

[JillSwift]

My suggestion for you would be to not use the idea of" energy taking a least resistant path" to understand this reality we live in!

I have found a common denominator that works in all existence for me and I will not try to force this idea on you!

Worth is determined by the value we put on something.

If I say all of reality is subject to this idea of energy and you say it's worthless, who am I to make it of value to you.

If reality is subject to energy, then I say energy has more worth to reality then your logic.

As of now I am interested in what is around me and not what isn't!

It does make me smile though to know that we are as far apart as we possibly can be in an argument!

What you think is worthless is what I think is the only thing that exists.

Another iteration of "all ideas are equal"?

 

Value is related to goals. A pile of cow manure is of no value to an apartment dweller but is of significant value to a hobby farmer.

 

An idea that makes no testable predictions about reality is utterly worthless to the goal of actually understanding reality. On the other hand, it is of great value to those who enjoy interesting ideas for their own sake.

 

Your ideas about energy fall into the latter category.

[walkntune]

Could you imagine how much better this planet could be if all of the energy wasted even in such fruitless discussion was used to reach those who need help?

Instead we all have to try and spout off how much knowledge we think we have to try and be mighty and powerful with knowledge and try and use it as a way to gain energy

from others. I don't think this energy study is a waste for me especially since I use it daily to help people overcome depression, encourage those who are hurting, help those who are in rehabs etc...

It has helped tremendously in these areas!

I just hope that as you continue on your path of knowledge you will find a place to benefit others and not try to use knowledge as power and self glorification. If you do what a fruitless life!

Everybody can see truth even if it's for a split second!

Edited November 14, 2009 by walkntune

[bascule]

I think it's notable how early life developed on earth.

 

It seems, at least in our universe, given appropriate conditions (i.e. temperatures that maintain liquid water and a magnetic field which protects delicate life molecules from destructive radiation) life forms rather quickly.

[ajb]

But I do believe it would be hard for there to be life on gas giants unless they were smaller and had less gravity... but that's about it. Everything else would just be crushed.

 

From what we know about life so far, liquid water is essential.

 

I do not think that gas giants have a stable enough atmosphere for life to develop. In Jupiter, for example all the essential components of life can be found near the surface. However, as they form larger more complex molecules they would fall down in the atmosphere. They would reach high temperature regions in the interior and break up again. Thus, it seems unlikely that life could develop.

 

Then as you say, the pressures on the small rocky core would be huge.

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

... life forms rather quickly.

 

Something like half a billion years after Earth's formation. (About 4 billion years ago).

 

(13.7 billion years ago the big bang)

Edited November 14, 2009 by ajb
Consecutive posts merged.

[Mr Skeptic]

I will not try to force this idea on you!

 

You can't, since you don't even have an idea. It seems you don't even know what energy means in physics, and it is the main word in your pile of gibberish. Make a prediction that must logically follow from your idea, if you want to say you have one. No prediction = it says nothing, at least not in science.

 

I'm not opposed to new ideas, you just don't have one yet.

[walkntune]

You can't, since you don't even have an idea. It seems you don't even know what energy means in physics, and it is the main word in your pile of gibberish. Make a prediction that must logically follow from your idea, if you want to say you have one. No prediction = it says nothing, at least not in science.

 

I predict UMmmmmmmmm! If we keep going on and and putting negative energy into this debate it will mess up this thread!They are getting back on track. Please let it go!

[insane_alien]

negative energy has never been shown to exist.

[walkntune]

negative energy has never been shown to exist.

Well I suppose I could have said opposing energy causing a negative effect!

I am continuing subject in a different thread.

[HOMER-16]

ajb, we only have one sample of life to work with. Earth. So we can't use ourselves as a reliable example of what is essential for life. Like I said in my first post. The rock doesn't grow the moss, the moss grows around the rock.

 

What I mean by that is, life isn't here because water was here, life formed around what it had. Keep in mind the water covers most of our planet. So why not make use of it? Say for instance, there was another substance with simalar properties. Or even without. Life could still form based upon that substance. This planet is also rich with Carbon, Oxygen, and Nitrogen. And we need them all. Coincedence? I think not.

 

 

I also agree with walkntune, just give it up.

 

But first, walkntune,

 

I just hope that as you continue on your path of knowledge you will find a place to benefit others and not try to use knowledge as power and self glorification. If you do what a fruitless life!

 

I refer you to my signature. To me, life is all about what you want.

[ajb]

ajb, we only have one sample of life to work with. Earth. So we can't use ourselves as a reliable example of what is essential for life. Like I said in my first post. The rock doesn't grow the moss, the moss grows around the rock.

 

What I mean by that is, life isn't here because water was here, life formed around what it had. Keep in mind the water covers most of our planet. So why not make use of it? Say for instance, there was another substance with simalar properties. Or even without. Life could still form based upon that substance. This planet is also rich with Carbon, Oxygen, and Nitrogen. And we need them all. Coincedence? I think not.

 

 

Our understanding of what life is has greatly changed over recent year. Microbes have been found inside solid solid rock under the ground in environments without free oxygen. More over they do not get their energy from the Sun. They "eat" minerals in the rock.

 

see Endolith, Hypolith and Extremophile.

 

However, I agree that we may be reducing our chances of finding life by looking for life "modelled on" life on Earth. But as we only know of examples of life on Earth what else are we supposed to do?

 

Even so, as more and more extremophiles are found the chances of life elsewhere go up.

 

We are also constrained by fundamental chemistry. Compare the oxides of carbon and silicon as an example. Very close in the periodic table, but the oxides are so different physically.

[HOMER-16]

Yes I'm beginning to see the chem. side of this as I'm currently taking the class.

 

As for what else are we to do... Idk, we could look for environments where chemical bonds could potentially grow into complex molecules.