For the alternative theorists:

[leopold]

you are on my ignore list paddoboy.
i've found that absolutely nothing new and/or novel comes from you.
yes sir indeed, a fine one to talk about imagination you are.

 

[paddoboy]

you are on my ignore list paddoboy.
i've found that absolutely nothing new and/or novel comes from you.
yes sir indeed, a fine one to talk about imagination you are.

:shrug:

The feeling is quite mutual, but I have not got you or anyone on ignore.
Your problem: Deal with it.

 

[paddoboy]

the most basic definition of life is the living cell.
the above "definition" can be found in biology books.
this does a good job at defining plant and cellular life but falls short of animal and human life because it doesn't account for consciousness among other things.
-my opinion.

maybe.
there is no conclusive proof.

yes, adaptations have been observed.
there is no evidence that these adaptations account for the diversity of life.

So which brand of a mythical God to you invoke?
If you were fair dinkum, you would know that the ONLY scientific answers are Abiogenesis [chemistry] and Evolution.

 

[JimmyRoberts]

I think any aspiring theoretical physicist would do well to read Gerard 't Hooft's "How to become a GOOD Theoretical Physicist".

I cannot post links yet, but a the first result of the following Google search will get you there:

"How to become a GOOD Theoretical Physicist ~Gadda001"

Perhaps someone could post a direct link later.

Thanks

 

[paddoboy]

Thanks Jimmy and welcome!
You'll be surprised to know, we have three alternative hypothesis pushers [I am trying to refrain from calling them theories for obvious reasons] that all claim to have a ToE, and all claim they are rewriting 20th, 21st century cosmology.

Here's your link, and thanks.

http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~Gadda001/goodtheorist/index.html

 

[paddoboy]

Here's a relevant extract from that link Jimmy....

" It so often happens that I receive mail - well-intended but totally useless - by amateur physicists who believe to have solved the world. They believe this, only because they understand totally nothing about the real way problems are solved in Modern Physics. If you really want to contribute to our theoretical understanding of physical laws - and it is an exciting experience if you succeed! - there are many things you need to know. First of all, be serious about it. All necessary science courses are taught at Universities, so, naturally, the first thing you should do is have yourself admitted at a University and absorb everything you can"

 

[JimmyRoberts]

Thanks for the welcome, paddoboy, and thanks for posting the link.

Only three?

 

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to JimmyRoberts, re: your #1404 post.

"Gerardus t' Hooft?" Stay with Einstein...better a master than a mathematician!

(t'Hooft proves that the Nobel Committee will award a prize for "being proficient at promotion and self-aggrandizement of theories that lead to nothing")



(Thanks for reading!)

 

[paddoboy]

(t'Hooft proves that the Nobel Committee will award a prize for "being proficient at promotion and self-aggrandizement of theories that lead to nothing")

Yeah sure.......
from WIKI:
Gerardus (Gerard) 't Hooft (Dutch: [ˌɣɪːrɑrt ət ˈɦoːft]; born July 5, 1946) is a Dutch theoretical physicist and professor at Utrecht University, the Netherlands. He shared the 1999 Nobel Prize in Physics with his thesis advisor Martinus J. G. Veltman "for elucidating the quantum structure of electroweak interactions".
His work concentrates on gauge theory, black holes, quantum gravity and fundamental aspects of quantum mechanics. His contributions to physics include a proof that gauge theories are renormalizable, dimensional regularization, and the holographic principle.

 

[JimmyRoberts]

"Gerardus t' Hooft?" Stay with Einstein...better a master than a mathematician!

You do realize that Einstein has been dead for sixty years, don't you? He's not exactly at the forefront of physics these days. A lot of progress has been made since his time.

 

[Trippy]

Here's a point that the likes of leopold miss entirely.

What did the first forms of life even look like? Would we neccessarily recognize them if we saw them?

Oldest Multicellular Life Revealed In Detail

The record for the oldest multicellular life was broken, nay smashed, four years ago with the finding of 2.1 billion year old fossils in Gabon. Understandably, the finders raced to publish before the fossils had been fully described, but a more revealing portrait has now been made public.​

 

[Write4U]

You do realize that Einstein has been dead for sixty years, don't you? He's not exactly at the forefront of physics these days. A lot of progress has been made since his time.

Forgive this layman.

Regarding 't Hooft, from wiki,

With Stephen Hawking's discovery of Hawking radiation of black holes, it appeared that the evaporation of these objects violated a fundamental property of quantum mechanics, unitarity. 't Hooft refused to accept this problem, known as the black hole information paradox, and assumed that this must be the result of the semi-classical treatment of Hawking, and that it should not appear in a full theory of quantum gravity. He proposed that it might be possible to study some of the properties of such a theory, by assuming that such a theory was unitary.

Using this approach he has argued that near a black hole, quantum fields could be described by a theory in a lower dimension.[29] This led to introduction of the holographic principle by him and Leonard Susskind.[30]

I am a fan of David Bohm's worldview and wondered if 't Hooft used any of Bohm's Holographic models in his work?

Quantum Physics: David Bohm Bohmian Wave Mechanics / Wholeness and the Implicate Order/ The Holographic Universe
www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-David-Bohm-Holographic-Universe.htm

 

[leopold]

Here's a point that the likes of leopold miss entirely.

What did the first forms of life even look like? Would we neccessarily recognize them if we saw them?

Oldest Multicellular Life Revealed In Detail

The record for the oldest multicellular life was broken, nay smashed, four years ago with the finding of 2.1 billion year old fossils in Gabon. Understandably, the finders raced to publish before the fossils had been fully described, but a more revealing portrait has now been made public.​

that was exactly the point i was trying to make in 1386, which came first.
if there even WAS a first, there is no evidence that says life isn't infinite.
yes, i know, the BB, but there's no evidence of that either.
yes, expansion is noted, but that says nothing about any kind of "explosion".
why i get ridiculed for making these observations is anyones guess.
here's another:
to my knowledge there is no hint of consciousness in the physical world, but yet we have to deal with it concerning life.

 

[humbleteleskop]

What did the first forms of life even look like?

http://molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/researchVesicles.html

 

[paddoboy]

that was exactly the point i was trying to make in 1386, which came first.
if there even WAS a first, there is no evidence that says life isn't infinite.

A roundabout way of saying "there is no evidence to show that life is Infinite"

yes, i know, the BB, but there's no evidence of that either.
yes, expansion is noted, but that says nothing about any kind of "explosion".
why i get ridiculed for making these observations is anyones guess.

Because they are obviously wrong.
There was no "ëxplosion" as has been mentioned a 100 times. It was a term of derision by Fred Hoyle.
Your obvious apparent creationist views prevent you from recognising the evidence for the BB

here's another:
to my knowledge there is no hint of consciousness in the physical world, but yet we have to deal with it concerning life.

Of course...Just part of the evolutionary cycle.

 

[Trippy]

http://molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/researchVesicles.html

Yes, I'm well aware of what vesicles look like, thankyou, if you had been paying any attention whatsoever you would have seen me directing Leopold to them as proof of life from non-life...

 

[humbleteleskop]

"things becoming alive" is the most absurd thing i ever heard aside from an intelligence without substance.

I'd say it is expected given apparent tendency of atoms and molecules to gravitate towards each other, to accumulate, to grow in size and complexity, on every scale we observe. But there are limits in proportionality between size/mass and complexity, depending on the environment and the scale of it. Generally though, to grow in size you have to grow in complexity, otherwise you fall apart. It's only natural then this growth would tend to shape into more efficient or robust combination between size/mass and complexity, and it seems eating, growing and reproducing combinations of molecules and atoms is what that is, on this planet at least.

 

[leopold]

I'd say it is expected given apparent tendency of atoms and molecules to gravitate towards each other, to accumulate, to grow in size and complexity, on every scale we observe.

i will agree.
but yet science can't duplicate it despite having the final functioning product to work from.
on the other hand, organic chemistry is complex.
i will go so far to say it's so complex no single chemist will ever understand all of it.

But there are limits in proportionality between size/mass and complexity, depending on the environment and the scale of it. Generally though, to grow in size you have to grow in complexity, otherwise you fall apart.

i disagree on this.
the cell is the most complex.
organs are merely specialized cells and add no further complexity.

It's only natural then this growth would tend to shape into more efficient or robust combination between size/mass and complexity, and it seems eating, growing and reproducing combinations of molecules and atoms is what that is, on this planet at least.

yes, i will agree.
but YOU must agree that logic and reason sometimes isn't enough, and it (logic/ reason) certainly isn't any kind of evidence.

 

[leopold]

i wonder if paddoboy ever gives his own honest opinion about anything other than alluding to people as cranks, crackpots, creationists, add further ad homs.
a constructive environment for imagination for sure.
one of the major reasons i have his silly butt on ignore.

 

[exchemist]

i will agree.
but yet science can't duplicate it despite having the final functioning product to work from.
on the other hand, organic chemistry is complex.
i will go so far to say it's so complex no single chemist will ever understand all of it.

i disagree on this.
the cell is the most complex.
organs are merely specialized cells and add no further complexity.

yes, i will agree.
but YOU must agree that logic and reason sometimes isn't enough, and it (logic/ reason) certainly isn't any kind of evidence.

Leopold, you are obviously right to say we do not know how life originated, due to lack of evidence about the process. All we have are some speculative hypotheses, at best.

But three points need to be made:

1) The business of Natural Science is to seek natural explanations. This obviously excludes supernatural explanations. This is not some recent restriction, imposed by an imaginary ruling clique of "atheists" or "materialists", as I have seen suggested in creationist circles, but has been a cornerstone of the scientific method since the Renaissance.

2) When we make speculative hypotheses about the origin of life, we invoke another fundamental element of the scientific method, which is Ockham's Razor. We thus do not add extra features to a hypothesis unless the need for them has been demonstrated. This is another good reason for not invoking the supernatural.

3) The fact that an individual cannot understand how it could have been possible for life to arise does not justify dragging in the supernatural. This is the famous, fallacious, "Argument from Personal Incredulity".

Natural Science will have nothing to do with such notions and will continue to speculate on, and seek evidence in nature for, what may have happened. It may take centuries and even then we may be very unsure. But that is fine.