is life about the survival of the fittest chemistry?

[DaveC426913]

Your objection is of a semantic nature?

No. Your assertions are based on semantics.

You seize upon some word - such as 'selection' - find an alternate meaning (by looking in a dictionary and misusing what you find there) - then assume the two meanings apply to the same thing - then take off on flights of fancy from there.

Currents in rivers select for particle size/density.
In areas where the current ebbs, dense particles, such as gold, will settle.
Areas where there is strong current are stripped of all but the largest, heaviest rocks.

You would argue that rivers have intent. That they make choices. All by your semantic corruption of the word 'selection'.

 

[exchemist]

I appreciate the presentation of more assertions, analysis to which I can contribute.


None of which informs your assertion that the universe, itself, is semi-whatever.

Houses are made of bricks, but it does not follow that bricks must make houses.
Life may come in microscopic form, but it does not follow that microscopic things are therefore imbued with life.
Sentience may be rooted at the quantum scale, but it does not follow that quantum scale begets sentience.

Yes. What seems to be missing is the discussion is the role of emergent phenomena. Sentience, intelligence etc emerge from biological structures that do not themselves possess either.

Just as temperature, pressure or a liquid or solid state of matter emerge from the behaviour of collections of molecules, none of which individually has any of these properties.

 

[Michael 345]

Just as temperature, pressure or a liquid or solid state of matter emerge from the behaviour of collections of molecules, none of which individually has any of these properties.

They are NOT properties of molecules in a collection

They are a arbitrary measurements

A recording of the state of the collection recorded at the moment the collection is within what ever the conditions the collection finds itself

 

[billvon]

Right, but the dictionary quote also cited an example "such men decided the selection of candidates"

Exactly. It was an EXAMPLE. Claiming that therefore the word includes volitional choice is asinine. You might as well claim that "choice" applies only to the selection of candidates and nothing else because of the example.

 

[DaveC426913]

They are NOT properties of molecules in a collection

They are a arbitrary measurements

A recording of the state of the collection recorded at the moment the collection is within what ever the conditions the collection finds itself

No. Pressure, for example, is a real thing. It existed before anyone came along to measure it.

So did temperature. The temperature scale came along to apply measurements to it.

 

[Michael 345]

No. Pressure, for example, is a real thing. It existed before anyone came along to measure it.

So did temperature. The temperature scale came along to apply measurements to it.

Volume - mass - shape

Anything else is a localised condition dependant on local conditions and a only records a portion of the matter

 

[DaveC426913]

Volume - mass - shape

Anything else is a localised condition dependant on local conditions and a only records a portion of the matter

And yet, they all existed before humans came along to measure them.

Pressure controls the shape of the Sun without any human there to measure it.
Temperature melts ice without any human there.

 

[Michael 345]

And yet, they all existed before humans came along to measure them.

Pressure controls the shape of the Sun without any human there to measure it.
Temperature melts ice without any human there.

I did not claim pressure or temperature did not exist

Although a case could be made they DON'T exist - period

• They are concepts with no physicality and
• Being codified does not confer existence on them

 

[DaveC426913]

I did not claim pressure or temperature did not exist

Pretty sure you did in post 183. But maybe I'm reading it wrong.

Although a case could be made they DON'T exist - period

• They are concepts with no physicality and
• Being codified does not confer existence on them

Pretty sure I refuted this in post 187:

Pressure controls the shape of the Sun.
Temperature - specifically warm - melts ice.

 

[Michael 345]

Pretty sure you did in post 183. But maybe I'm reading it wrong.

Correct you read it wrong

Pressure controls the shape of the Sun without any human there to measure it.
Temperature melts ice without any human there.

And repeated in post #189

Pressure is the amount of force exerted per area and the units of pressure are newtons per square meter

Units of pressure do not have a physicality which would confirm their reality

Temprature is a measurement of the degree of hotness and determined by average speed of the molecules. Various scales are used to determine this average speed

Units of temperature do not have a physicality which would confirm their reality

 

[iceaura]

They are a arbitrary measurements

The are not arbitrary. All physical properties are measurements.

Although a case could be made they DON'T exist - period

• They are concepts with no physicality and

They have the same physicality as length and mass.

Anything else is a localised condition dependant on local conditions and a only records a portion of the matter

Volume is as localized and dependent on conditions as pressure and temperature.

 

[iceaura]

Pressure is the amount of force exerted per area and the units of pressure are newtons per square meter

Units of pressure do not have a physicality which would confirm their reality

Temprature is a measurement of the degree of hotness and determined by average speed of the molecules. Various scales are used to determine this average speed

Units of temperature do not have a physicality which would confirm their reality

Volume, pressure, and temperature, are mutually interdependent physical properties. They are equivalently possessed of physical reality - they often share a single graph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PVT_3D_diagram.png

 

[Michael 345]

The are not arbitrary. All physical properties are measurements.

Objects with physicality can be measured yes

Measurements however are arbitrary and do not have physicality

They have the same physicality as length and mass.

I will give you mass but not length

Volume is as localized and dependent on conditions as pressure and temperature.

Agree

I have not said that the properties of matter (Volume - mass - shape) do not change die due to localised conditions

Those localised conditions are not properties of the matter

Coffee time

 

[DaveC426913]

I have not said that the properties of matter (Volume - mass - shape) do not change die due to localised conditions

What you did say is:

Just as temperature, pressure or a liquid or solid state of matter emerge from the behaviour of collections of molecules, none of which individually has any of these properties.

They are NOT properties of molecules in a collection
They are a arbitrary measurements
A recording of the state of the collection recorded at the moment the collection is within what ever the conditions the collection finds itself

In short, you said "temp and pressure are measurements, not properties."

Pressure is the amount of force exerted per area

Yes.
Whales are subject to it when they dive. Their lungs get compressed by as much as 90%.
Air masses are subject to it, resulting in adiabatic cooling.
How are these not physical?

And, as Iceaura correctly points out (and every scuba diver is taught) : pressure, volume and temperature are all interdependent in gasses. It would be impossible for the physical properties of volume and pressure to change, without the commensurate temperature change. Thus, temperate is as physical as pressure and volume.

 

[Michael 345]

Volume, pressure, and temperature, are mutually interdependent physical properties. They are equivalently possessed of physical reality - they often share a single graph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PVT_3D_diagram.png

I think I am going to double, even triple down about properties of matter

Before I was trying to think of a science teacher I had, back in the Dinosaur age.

His take, if I recall correctly

Mass is the only intrinsic property of matter. The rest are variables subject to variation dependant on local conditions. No mass, no matter. Matter has mass that's it - period

The mass remains constant, regardless of conditions, unless, and only unless, mass is ether added or subtracted

Don't know, but fairly certain, that is not verbatim

Any other so called properties (I recall he was dismissive) rely on mass. They are not present if mass not present

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PVT_3D_diagram.png

Pretty diagram but I don't see mass in the picture

Back to coffee

 

[DaveC426913]

Pressure and temperature are physical properties. You originally suggested otherwise.

Now you're saying they're not properties of individual particles of matter.

Okay, no one said otherwise. No one was talking about the properties of particles.

Pressure and temperature are properties of matter - which can be comprised of an unlimited number of particles.

Do you disagree?

 

[Michael 345]

Now you're saying they're not properties of individual particles of matter.

Noooooo. Read post #195 again..

They are not intrinsic properties of matter

Mass is the only intrinsic property of matter

The remaining properties are not intrinsic. Matter has them because we assign them but they are not capable of being present independently on their own.

No physicality.

Regarding temperature this may be of interest
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Temperature_Scale_of_1990

The only intrinsic property of matter is its mass. It does not come with a built in temperature (however if you specify specifically a number of very precise conditions you can identify which type of matter you are dealing with

But a particular lump of matter can be (colloquially) hot, cold, round, square, solid, liquid gas etc etc etc but retain its only intrinsic property mass

1am to early for coffee. Will download local newspaper and go back to sleep

 

[exchemist]

Noooooo. Read post #195 again..

They are not intrinsic properties of matter

Mass is the only intrinsic property of matter

The remaining properties are not intrinsic. Matter has them because we assign them but they are not capable of being present independently on their own.

No physicality.

Regarding temperature this may be of interest
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Temperature_Scale_of_1990

The only intrinsic property of matter is its mass. It does not come with a built in temperature (however if you specify specifically a number of very precise conditions you can identify which type of matter you are dealing with

But a particular lump of matter can be (colloquially) hot, cold, round, square, solid, liquid gas etc etc etc but retain its only intrinsic property mass

1am to early for coffee. Will download local newspaper and go back to sleep

I'm not sure where you are getting this from, but I suspect it has got garbled.

For fundamental particles you certainly need some intrinsic i.e. unchangeable, properties, viz. mass, charge and spin.

And then there are other variable, i.e. not intrinsic, properties such as relative velocity or momentum, which are physical too, as they result in measurable physical effects, such as pressure, temperature etc.

I seem to have inadvertently started a new sub-topic.

 

[iceaura]

I remain unconvinced that such features of the world as size and shape and location and volume and temperature and pressure and velocity and so forth have no "physicality".
The workings of a basic internal combustion engine, for example, while they have little to do with mass, seem not only largely free of "arbitrary" features but unarguably manifesting "physicality" to whatever degree the term has meaning.

Mass is the only intrinsic property of matter
The remaining properties are not intrinsic.

The conclusion would be that physicality is not an intrinsic property of matter - ok.

It does not come with a built in temperature (however if you specify specifically a number of very precise conditions you can identify which type of matter you are dealing with

I don't think there are different types of intrinsic mass. Are there different types of matter?

 

[Michael 345]

The conclusion would be that physicality is not an intrinsic property of matter - ok.

Don't know where that came from

Mass has a physicality and is the amount of matter present

I don't think there are different types of intrinsic mass. Are there different types of matter?

Mass is just mass - intrinsic has no meaning as in "intrinsic mass"
What would it be intrinsic to?

Different types of mass???? Sure. I knew of 4 - Solid - Liquid - Gas - Plasma

On updating now it seems 7 (perhaps more when science sorts out new discoveries)
****
February 12, 2004: We learned it in grade school. There are three forms of matter: solids, liquids and gases.

But that's not even half right.
......
"When you find a new form of matter," notes Jin, "it takes a while to understand it."

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/12feb_fermi
*****

So 7? perhaps more????