Commander Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 I have a theory that Everything is Unique in our Universe ! By this I don't mean the Simple Proof that Every Point in our Universe is Uniquely Different from another in factors such as Latitude, Longitude or X,Y,Z Coordinates but in a more tangible way !! We have many Life Forms and Everything is Evolving too. There is a definite Genetic Signature of Each Species and within the same Species the DNA can be used to differentiate within the same Species. Every Person, Personality, Plant or Animal Life is different. Following this Logic it is impossible to produce anything identical to anything else. Exact Replica. Even in the Manufacturing line the Serial Number and Time Stamp of Finishing that Product will be different. From the Practical Point of View I would like to state that even within the Human Body all Cells will not be identical having exactly identical DNA etc [though large similarity can be identified] which explains what causes Mutation and Evolution. I can justifiably extend the same Logic to even to non-animate bodies and say that no Particle , atom, Molecule etc too can never be an exact duplicate of another !!! Though in many cases it does not matter to vary slightly and can be treated to be IDENTICAL !!!!
Strange Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 I can justifiably extend the same Logic to even to non-animate bodies and say that no Particle , atom, Molecule etc too can never be an exact duplicate of another This is clearly wrong. It is well established that all electrons, for example, are identical. There is even a "one electron" hypothesis based on this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identical_particles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe
Commander Posted January 12, 2015 Author Posted January 12, 2015 This is clearly wrong. It is well established that all electrons, for example, are identical. There is even a "one electron" hypothesis based on this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identical_particles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe But at such a minute scale and quantity of charge etc how can it be asserted that exact replica is proved. Even two $ coins with exact features can be taken as exact duplicates without bothering about the differences in temperature , Forces acting on each and number of particles on their internals and their state of behaviour. Maybe what you have indicated is the best identity we can get.
swansont Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 I can justifiably extend the same Logic to even to non-animate bodies and say that no Particle , atom, Molecule etc too can never be an exact duplicate of another !!! As Strange has pointed out, the Pauli exclusion principle (and other physics phenomena, such as Fermi gases) fails if this is true. Ergo, this is falsified, even at the atomic scale. But at such a minute scale and quantity of charge etc how can it be asserted that exact replica is proved. Because there are ramifications that can be measured, in terms of how fermion fill up energy levels depending on whether or not they can be distinguished.
Phi for All Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 This just sounds like forcing a specific interpretation of "unique" to fit your idea. A distinction without a difference. Why is it meaningful that replication might not be exact?
Commander Posted January 12, 2015 Author Posted January 12, 2015 This just sounds like forcing a specific interpretation of "unique" to fit your idea. A distinction without a difference. Why is it meaningful that replication might not be exact? Well, the more intriguing part is this Uniqueness among DNAs within the same person supporting inherent evolution etc though the focus now is on particles too. May be we shouldn't expect exact duplicate - in all conceivable aspects !
Phi for All Posted January 12, 2015 Posted January 12, 2015 Well, the more intriguing part is this Uniqueness among DNAs within the same person supporting inherent evolution etc though the focus now is on particles too. May be we shouldn't expect exact duplicate - in all conceivable aspects ! If I copy a document on my printer, I know I'm not getting an exact duplicate. But for my purposes, sharing/recording the information contained in that document, I think I can safely claim that my copy is exactly like the original. No information was changed, and any differences between the two have no real distinction in this context.
Commander Posted January 20, 2015 Author Posted January 20, 2015 Yes,Equality is a practical decision ! All Citizens are Equal, All Members are Equal etc. Mathematically Yes !! 1 = 1 Yes that is the Mathematical meaning. But Practically : Which One is Equal to which another One is the Question. Because, No One is IDENTICAL to another One !!!
hoola Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) I see no reason electrons cannot have slightly differing makeups in small details (hidden variables) that do not affect functioning. If you have two identical automobiles, one cannot attest small variations from a distance of such variations as the settings of the radio dials....it seems electrons have substructure if they are composed of information, and more than one bit is required to determine all electron properties. As far as any things in the universe being equal, I say the only true equivalence is within the realm of numbers, 1 is identical to 1. Edited January 20, 2015 by hoola
Strange Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 I see no reason electrons cannot have slightly differing makeups in small details (hidden variables) that do not affect functioning. The only reason is: there is no evidence for it. You can support any proposition at all if you invent the evidence. That isn't allowed in a court of law and it isn't allowed in science. it seems electrons have substructure Does it? Citation needed. Because, No One is IDENTICAL to another One !!! GOTO #2 (We appear to be stuck in an infinite loop.)
JohnSSM Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 There is a class of identical twins who share the exact same DNA code... http://geneticsawareness.org/learn-about-genetics/have-questions-about-genetics/are-identical-twins-100-genetically-identicaland what is there in an electron that differs from another? nuttin...http://io9.com/5876966/what-if-every-electron-in-the-universe-was-all-the-same-exact-particleKeep looking for ideas that bring you comfort and make sense to you...the path you take to find your conclusions will be the most unique thing you ever do...and does not have to be real unless that matters to you...
swansont Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 I see no reason electrons cannot have slightly differing makeups in small details (hidden variables) that do not affect functioning. What properties would that be? Local hidden variable are rules out experimentally. Other QM properties are identical, otherwise thew Pauli exclusion principle doesn't apply, and we know it applies.
Commander Posted January 20, 2015 Author Posted January 20, 2015 I see no reason electrons cannot have slightly differing makeups in small details (hidden variables) that do not affect functioning. If you have two identical automobiles, one cannot attest small variations from a distance of such variations as the settings of the radio dials....it seems electrons have substructure if they are composed of information, and more than one bit is required to determine all electron properties. As far as any things in the universe being equal, I say the only true equivalence is within the realm of numbers, 1 is identical to 1. Hi, Yes Good Point ! There is a class of identical twins who share the exact same DNA code... http://geneticsawareness.org/learn-about-genetics/have-questions-about-genetics/are-identical-twins-100-genetically-identical and what is there in an electron that differs from another? nuttin... http://io9.com/5876966/what-if-every-electron-in-the-universe-was-all-the-same-exact-particle Keep looking for ideas that bring you comfort and make sense to you...the path you take to find your conclusions will be the most unique thing you ever do...and does not have to be real unless that matters to you... Identical Twins may share the exact DNA at the base of their Origin but each of the Twin is different from the other and in NO WAY IDENTICAL in ALL RESPECTS AND ASPECTS ! Also. as proposed all the Cells and Genes created from this base DNA can and should have a difference from any other Person, Gene or DNA. Albeit minutely paving way to CONSTANT EVOLUTION !!
swansont Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 Hi, Yes Good Point ! No, it's not. "I see no reason…" is just an argument from ignorance. The reasons exist, even if one is not aware of them.
andreasjva Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) That isn't allowed in a court of law and it isn't allowed in science. Kind of a funny analogy, considering the institution of science assumes everything is wrong/irrelevant until proven right. Science is nothing like law in that regard. In law, innocence is assumed and guilt must be proven. The only similarity is the lawyers arguing the case. Edited January 20, 2015 by andreasjva
Phi for All Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 Kind of a funny analogy, considering the institution of science assumes everything is wrong/irrelevant until proven right. Kind of sad, that you think this is true.
Commander Posted January 20, 2015 Author Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) There is a class of identical twins who share the exact same DNA code... http://geneticsawareness.org/learn-about-genetics/have-questions-about-genetics/are-identical-twins-100-genetically-identical and what is there in an electron that differs from another? nuttin... http://io9.com/5876966/what-if-every-electron-in-the-universe-was-all-the-same-exact-particle Keep looking for ideas that bring you comfort and make sense to you...the path you take to find your conclusions will be the most unique thing you ever do...and does not have to be real unless that matters to you... Well, I did write a reply and somehow it didn't go through gue to my Computer glitch. I will try to write it again here : Though they are called identical twins the point is that no two humans can ever be identical- twins or not. Though the DNAs of both are almost identical - a replication of the same DNA, no replication can ever be exactly Identical. Therefore, nothing separated by Space can ever be IDENTICAL and therefore Everything has to be Unique ! What we call Identical are almost SAME , EQUAL to one another in most aspects and even can not be differentiated at all by testing. Still as much as we can argue about it, when we can recognize two Entities as different from each other they are more than likely to have some Variation in their characteristics. In the case of DNA etc there is always a constant Evolution taking place due to this differences as the Life Organisms CAN NOT REPLICATE IDENTICALLY !! I am slowly getting SOLD into this THOUGHT which I got that EVERYTHING IS UNIQUE !!! >>>>>>> PS : Oh OK ; what I wrote earlier has also appeared. It must be another Comment which went missing Edited January 20, 2015 by Commander
Strange Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 Though they are called identical twins the point is that no two humans can ever be identical- twins or not. Though the DNAs of both are almost identical - a replication of the same DNA, no replication can ever be exactly Identical. I think you miss the point: the twins are complex organisms whose outcomes are determined partly by the DNA (itself a comnplex structure), partly by changes to that DNA and partly by environment. On the other hand, an electron is fundamental particle fully defined by a small number of parameters. So, apart from the possibility of being in (a finite number of) different states, they are all identical. I am slowly getting SOLD into this THOUGHT which I got that EVERYTHING IS UNIQUE !!! I can't imagine why, as it is very obviously wrong.
Commander Posted January 20, 2015 Author Posted January 20, 2015 No, it's not. "I see no reason…" is just an argument from ignorance. The reasons exist, even if one is not aware of them. swansont : Can you explain your point.
andreasjva Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 Kind of sad, that you think this is true. It isn't? This is clearly wrong. It is well established that all electrons, for example, are identical. There is even a "one electron" hypothesis based on this. Well established and proven have entirely different meanings. There is nothing "clearly" wrong in the initial assumption of the poster. It's actually quite possible. For example, math is only capable of handling absolute values, so any answer determined by mathematics will always yield an absolute result. That could run contrary to reality. For example: 3.14 + 3.14 = 6.28 and 3.1415 + 3.1415 = 6.2830 but 3.14/3.14 = 1 and 3.1415/3.1415 = 1 1 doesn't necessarily mean the same thing in reality, although mathematically they may appear identical. Math only handles absolute values. Math itself can only simulate non-absolute values, and therefor can only simulate reality in absolute terms. Reality is not an absolute, so there is many different interpretations of the same problem. So, the assumption that everything is unique, cannot be proven either way. It is neither right, nor wrong. It is unknown to science.
Strange Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 Well established and proven have entirely different meanings. Of course. That is why I said "well established" because we are talking about science and so "proven" is irrelevant. There is nothing "clearly" wrong in the initial assumption of the poster. It's actually quite possible. Apart from the fact it is contradicted by evidence. That is how science works: form a hypothesis; test it against the evidence; reject the hypothesis if the evidence does not support it. When there is new evidence that electrons are infinitely variable then come back and present it. So, the assumption that everything is unique, cannot be proven either way. It is neither right, nor wrong. It is unknown to science. Only if you choose to ignore the evidence. Kind of a funny analogy, considering the institution of science assumes everything is wrong/irrelevant until proven right. Science is nothing like law in that regard. In law, innocence is assumed and guilt must be proven. As well as being wrong, this is irrelevant: wishful thinking and made-up "stuff" are not valid evidence.
imatfaal Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 ,...For example, math is only capable of handling absolute values, so any answer determined by mathematics will always yield an absolute result. That could run contrary to reality. [latex]\pi > e[/latex] Your statement is completely untrue. Perhaps basic arithmetics and "sums" can only handle absolute values - but maths can do pretty much anything we care to think up. After just a couple of years of school you get to algebra where you learn to discover properties and values of unknown variables with respect to other variables; each variable can easily hold any value on the real number line but we understand the relationship simply and precisely
andreasjva Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 I didn't say it was wrong Strange, I said it couldn't be proven conclusively mathematically, because math can't handle non-absolute values. The accuracy of the measurement is entirely dependent on the equipment one is using to take the measurement. The equipment itself is calibrated to an absolute standard, and will always yield an absolute result. They may be identical to that piece of equipment, but that certainly doesn't answer the question, does it? And to confound the problem, the more accurate we make the measuring devices, the less useful and less accurate it becomes in taking measurements, because it becomes too sensitive. Science approximates to an acceptable degree of accuracy and intentionally yields an absolute value that they can work with. You have to. If I used a bathroom scale to weigh ping pong balls, can I claim all ping pong balls weigh 0? Of course not. The only thing that has been proven is that science can make pretty damn accurate equipment.
swansont Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 swansont : Can you explain your point. When someone says something — which is wrong— because there is no basis in fact to back them up, they have not made a good point.
andreasjva Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) Your statement is completely untrue. I think you're missing the point. We can only be as accurate mathematically, as the equipment we are using, or our patience in decimal places manually. but maths can do pretty much anything we care to think up. Math can only simulate reality to a finite point. Yes, it does many things very well, but we will always be limited to certain number of decimal places. In 99% of the cases it is good enough. Math only handles absolute values. We have to physically stop a computer from trying to solve problems before it errors out or fills storage. And when it come to the speed of light, every decimal place becomes extremely significant. Edited January 20, 2015 by andreasjva
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now