Notices
Results 1 to 89 of 89

Thread: True or False?

  1. #1 True or False? 
    Forum Freshman Shubee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    75
    Is it consistent with all the fundamental laws of physics for many different advanced forms of life to come into existence practically instantaneously out of inanimate material on a lifeless planet without there being an Intelligent Designer?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Yes


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D. Heinsbergrelatz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    994
    well this could get controversial, but ill say True
    ------------------




    "Mathematicians stand on each other's shoulders."- Carl Friedrich Gauss


    -------------------
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: True or False? 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Shubee
    Is it consistent with all the fundamental laws of physics for without there being an Intelligent Designer?
    Nobody has any valid theory for abiogenesis. So it is neither consisstent nor inconsistent.

    On the other hand, there is absolutely no evidence for "many different advanced forms life coming into existence practically instantaneously out of inanimate material on a lifeless planet." That most certainly did not happen on Earth.

    What planet are you from ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    110
    Instantaneous?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: True or False? 
    Forum Freshman Shubee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    There is absolutely no evidence for "many different advanced forms [of] life coming into existence practically instantaneously out of inanimate material on a lifeless planet."
    I didn't ask if anything special happened anywhere in the universe. I asked if all the fundamental laws of physics collectively allow or exclude the possibility of many different advanced forms of life coming into existence out of inanimate material on a lifeless planet in a single day without there being an Intelligent Designer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    144
    Yes because it happened.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    59
    The laws of physics and chemistry certainly enable different elements to combine into more and more complex forms such as proteins and nucleic acids - the building blocks of life. However it is a huge step to go from complex molecules such as this to actual life forms. Most darwinians and evolutionary biologists will tell you that the key factor is time. Because the Earth is apparently billions of years old more and more complex life forms evolved. It would take millenia for even simple organisms to evolve so I can't believe that many complex lifeforms could appear on a single day. No biologist is claiming this anyway. Complex lifeforms evolve from other lifeforms. A complex lifeform could not come into existence in a single day. THe laws of physics and chemistry probably would prevent it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    144
    Oh I see in a single day no.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Hi.

    Well, I think you couldn't imply, if physical conditions needed for life springing into existence were not met, a designer would do.

    Religion and Physics pretty much remain to be separated after all.

    Religion ever will tell a story which of acting person are dead yet. Whereas, Physics let you perceive nature in its momentary state. Therefore you'll have a true image of present things physics.

    So you are not asking two questions put in one, but fields of knowledge, these two questions belong to, differ, I would say. I'm not being sure really, if you are aware of this, as a matter of fact.

    Steve
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    There's nothing in the laws of physics to prevent it. Of course, I assume you mean instantaneously relative to geological timescales as it's obviously against physics for a whole ecosphere to simply pop into existence. (This is without going into the whole misconception of "advanced lifeforms.")
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Re: True or False? 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Shubee
    I didn't ask if anything special happened anywhere in the universe. I asked if all the fundamental laws of physics collectively allow or exclude the possibility of many different advanced forms of life coming into existence out of inanimate material on a lifeless planet in a single day without there being an Intelligent Designer.
    The laws of physics prevent anything of the sort from happening in a single day with or without an "Intelligent Designer". With extraordinarily high probability. And probability is the only thing that the fundamental laws of physics address.

    If you are some kind of creationist nut, I suggest taking your argument somewhere other than a physics forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13 Re: True or False? 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by Shubee
    I didn't ask if anything special happened anywhere in the universe. I asked if all the fundamental laws of physics collectively allow or exclude the possibility of many different advanced forms of life coming into existence out of inanimate material on a lifeless planet in a single day without there being an Intelligent Designer.
    Yes, the laws of physics prevents this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    It also depends on where you draw the line between inanimate matter and life. If you look closely, the transition is quite fuzzy. We all rely molecular chemistry that in principle is not very different from what we can observe in a lab. So, what is life and what is just organic chemistry?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    It also depends on where you draw the line between inanimate matter and life. If you look closely, the transition is quite fuzzy. We all rely molecular chemistry that in principle is not very different from what we can observe in a lab. So, what is life and what is just organic chemistry?
    Agree. any division from not - life versus life is arbitrary. If it,s arbitrary then there is none. It,s also subjektive. to most people stone could be dead and it doesn,t seem to have much consecquence in their live ; bugs are live stone is dead ; seems a clear seperation. But an artist who works or worked with stone but experiences it as dead material will never succeed. His imagination and creativity will be as dead (or lively) as he experiences and sees the materials he works with.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    Abiogenesis happened one way or another -- ie, naturally or supernaturally. I think one of the major tenets of science (especially in contrast to religion) is that, if something can occur, then the details of the mechanism for its occurrence can be, and should be, found and understood.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Could be Scotty beams someone somewhere and locals are getting on their knees.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by jrmonroe
    Abiogenesis happened one way or another -- ie, naturally or supernaturally. I think one of the major tenets of science (especially in contrast to religion) is that, if something can occur, then the details of the mechanism for its occurrence can be, and should be, found and understood.
    Yep.

    But don't hold your breath waiting for this explanation. We have a long way to go before we have the necessary understanding.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor jrmonroe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,444
    I can imagine many symbiotic "biological" reactions occurring throughout the ocean and that the ocean was essentially one huge organism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    In an attempt to steer this away from evolution and back to physics...

    If we assume that all particles have normalised wave functions when integrated over all space, then at every point in space there is a finite probabiltiy for each particle to be found there.

    Is this not the case, or can there be points in space where a particle has a zero probability of being located there? (electron orbitals spring to mind??)

    If so then whilst nigh on impossible (i'm guessing), each of the particles could find themselves in positions where they end up bonding with the other particles to form life.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    yes. There is a significantly tiny possibility that life can simply "happen" somewhere. Perhaps a full grown unicorn will spontaneously come into existence on Pluto, alive. In physics, it could happen, if all of the materials were there, but the chances of that happening are approximately the same as any one of us spontaneously growing a baby whale out of our left shoulder. It could happen, but quite frankly, it won't.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Yeah thats what I thought.

    To the OP, I think that answers your question!

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Sophomore An inconvenient lie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    florida orlando/daytona area
    Posts
    130
    I wonder if the day will dawn when humans have that sort of amazing and complex ability at our grasp! Who knows if physic's does not say it is impossible i think there should at least be some input of science into understanding such a field and sparking new ideas for the future!
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...alwarming.html
    Global warming is an inconvenient lie!

    Student
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    You think people should spend money on researching how to instantly materialize a unicorn (something which we have no theoretical basis on which to begin, even if it's not strictly impossible) rather than on things like a cure for cancer or better rocket technology?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Sophomore An inconvenient lie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    florida orlando/daytona area
    Posts
    130
    lol no i think that stuff is all very important and i mean on a moree basic level i have always had a fascination with that early newton stuff when he was trying to turn normal metals into gold (i think that we should have a little field to develop things that actually work like that to produce better energy sources and products regarded as being precious its just a little pet peeve of mine
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...alwarming.html
    Global warming is an inconvenient lie!

    Student
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    yes. There is a significantly tiny possibility that life can simply "happen" somewhere. Perhaps a full grown unicorn will spontaneously come into existence on Pluto, alive. In physics, it could happen, if all of the materials were there, but the chances of that happening are approximately the same as any one of us spontaneously growing a baby whale out of our left shoulder. It could happen, but quite frankly, it won't.
    Yes and there is a small positive probability that a monkey at a typewriter will produce the complete works of Shakespeare.

    So why has this not happened ?

    If you go a bit deeper and make a reasonable assumption regarding typing speed, then one can compute the probability of the monkey producing the works of Shakespeare in a given span of time. If you do that you find that the expected time before the monkey will successfuly produce the bard's works exceeds the age of the universe, by quite a bit.

    Now, tthe monkey producing Shakespeare is a lot more likely than for some complex lifeform to simply spring forward as a result of some quantum uncertainty. This is because there ar a lot more combinations of elementary particles involved in producing a complex organism. than there are permutations of letters in Shakespeare's works.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    59
    I think the point of this question was to ask whether an act of divine creation of life violated existing laws of physics i.e whether a biblical creation of life is consistent with the laws of physics. I think this is a meaningless question because a biblical creation of life is by definition supernatural. If God can create all life in one day then I'm sure he can alter the laws of physics as he sees fit. This is confusing religious with scientific principles.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    So an atheist beileving in abiogenesis is not really atheistic ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    59
    I'm not sure what your definition of abiogenesis is. Life arising from lifeless matter can be both a scientific, atheist belief or it can be a religious belief. Science has not really explained the creation of life from inert matter. If it does so the role of God is obviously diminished.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    The idea of abiogenesis assumes a division of inert and live. Then from inert to not inert it automatically recquires what you mentioned : "an act of divine creation", a genesis. So anyone who believes in (or experiences) a seperation between inert and living will seek for a some kind of genesis be it biblical or scientific. The seperation needs and implies a divine act or moment (or period ?) to make sense.

    So believing that such a seperation can be made and is real is impossible for someone who is not theistic in some way. Even if that doesn,t imply a divine creator it implies a divine act of creation of live out of what is not living.

    You can ask someone who believes in such an act : "who or what acted" ?
    An act without something or someone divine that acts is not an option that makes sense. [/code]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman Shubee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    75
    When I used the phrase, "advanced forms [of] life", I meant unquestionably complex, such as a human being.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    Imagine two monkeys, one started as two cells that became one (and two natural parents). Developing and growing. The other arises somewhere instantly. Can you imagine the same naming used ?
    People would seek a naming for something completely unicque. Thus a naming that is fanatasy as long as what the naming refers has not yet happened.

    Maybe to escape that this thread developed (evolved) naturally to a more general discussion about abiogenesis (which is actually just a variant of a genesis story).

    You,re question generalized would be : "can any organism appear instantly by accident and coincidence" ? Like in a moment or a sudden short period (like a day) and without male and female involved.

    But even generalized "īt" would not be an organism as what is normally understood as such. All cases where the word (living)organism is used there is typically an ancestorline in this case that would lack completely. People would seek and find other words to distincti it and avoid confusion.

    Putting the question as if there is no distinction borrowing the word organism for what you imagine makes it misleading.

    To test the question we could just as well start with finding a name for this unicque creature. A not yet existent name off course.

    Then the question becomes : "can ........(fill in any non existent naming) come from nowhere spontaneously somewhere in the universe ?

    Then people could first ask some other questions like what is it ? How does it compare with ( and is it distinct from) a human ? Is it male or female ? If it is male are there females as well and vice versa etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Shubee
    When I used the phrase, "advanced forms [of] life", I meant unquestionably complex, such as a human being.
    it does not break the laws of physics for a human to all of a sudden come together. if the material is there, again, it could happen
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    @Shubee and possibly several others, there seems to be some misconception here that the scientific idea of abiogenesis involves complex lifeforms popping into existence overnight, when what it really says is that it is possible to start from obviously nonliving atoms and molecules and progress to obviously living organisms. There's no mention of time in that, and any sane person would expect it to take a very long time. Much longer than humans are any good at comprehending.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman Shubee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    @Shubee and possibly several others, there seems to be some misconception here that the scientific idea of abiogenesis involves complex lifeforms popping into existence overnight, ...
    Perhaps you're referring to your own confusion. I didn't use the word abiogenesis so there is no reason for you to implicate me.

    The universe is beyond the purview of the quasi-sciences, so there is no need to mention unscientific speculations in biology. I referred to the fundamental laws of physics, which, for a very good reason, are understood to the entirely probabilistic. I believe that Arcane_Mathematician understands these laws, at least philosophically.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    it does not break the laws of physics for a human to all of a sudden come together. if the material is there, again, it could happen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    If E=mc^2 there is a lot of energy needed. Where you see that coming from ?

    there seems to be some misconception here that the scientific idea of abiogenesis involves complex lifeforms popping into existence overnight, when what it really says is that it is possible to start from obviously nonliving atoms and molecules and progress to obviously living organisms.
    Why the use of the word obvious here ....twice : "obviously non-living"and "obviously living" ?
    Does that make it "more obvious" or because it seems to be obvious (but may be not that obvious ) seeming obvious is not a real argument.
    A penguin can,t be half a penguin beit purple or any other colour.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    I'm not using the word obvious to make an argument. I'm just saying that most people can agree that oxygen molecules are non-living and people are living. Abiogenesis says that given enough time, you can get from one to the other.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Junior Steiner101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    251
    if the material is there, again, it could happen
    I think it is a bit misleading to make this sound so reasonable.
    Could happen? yes, but in context, only after perhaps a trillion trillion times the age of the universe, even then i wouldnt put a quid on it happening.

    All probabilities become 100% when the timescale is infinity.
    'Aint no thing like a chicken wing'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    In short, the odds against some things happening are so great as to be, for all practical purposes, impossible.

    Shubee, what is the intent behind your question? The terse nature of your posts gives the impression you are working to a hidden agenda. Some people don't like that sort of thing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by harvestein
    if the material is there, again, it could happen
    I think it is a bit misleading to make this sound so reasonable.
    Could happen? yes, but in context, only after perhaps a trillion trillion times the age of the universe, even then i wouldnt put a quid on it happening.

    All probabilities become 100% when the timescale is infinity.
    That's why my could was italicized... To denote that it, in theory, could happen. Not that it would.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    I'm just saying that most people can agree that oxygen molecules are non-living and people are living.
    So you do use it as an argument then ; the argument that most people agree on something.
    A penguin can,t be half a penguin beit purple or any other colour.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    seeming obvious is not a real argument.
    Being obvious may not be an argument, but it lies at heart of science and the foundationd of hypotheses and theories.
    Something that is obvious is observed. It is observed repeatedly. Repeated observations of a phenomenon lead to explanations of that phenomenon, often based upon consistent correlation of the phenomenon with others.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    I'm just saying that most people can agree that oxygen molecules are non-living and people are living.
    So you do use it as an argument then ; the argument that most people agree on something.
    Which point are you trying to make? That oxygen molecules may be living or that people might not be?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    416
    i hate to change direction on you guys, but i think it's going this way anyways.

    what is a good definition of life? if one is agreed upon on this forum it may well become a sticky posted on the biology subsection. i believe a good definition of life is important to biology.

    i don't believe a complete definition exists, because as someone stated, a page or two ago. the line between multiple organic molecules grouped together and a living cell becomes very blurry a lot of the time.
    physics: accurate, objective, boring
    chemistry: accurate if physics is accurate, slightly subjective, you can blow stuff up
    biology: accurate if chemistry is accurate, somewhat subjective, fascinating
    religion: accurate if people are always right, highly subjective, bewildering
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by saul
    i hate to change direction on you guys, but i think it's going this way anyways.

    what is a good definition of life? if one is agreed upon on this forum it may well become a sticky posted on the biology subsection. i believe a good definition of life is important to biology.

    i don't believe a complete definition exists, because as someone stated, a page or two ago. the line between multiple organic molecules grouped together and a living cell becomes very blurry a lot of the time.
    Biologists have been trying unsuccessfully to formulate a definition of life for many many years. You are unlikely to solve that problem here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Definitions are not static things, but instead are rather dynamic and change over time. Regardless, here is a "definition of life" I learned from a biologist a few years back at another site. It's simple, and it works.


    To be alive, an entity must have all 4 of the following characteristics:
    1. metabolize (have anabolism and catabolism)
    2. Grow
    3. Respond to stimuli
    4. Reproduce.



    Botta bing... What's next?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by Shubee
    When I used the phrase, "advanced forms [of] life", I meant unquestionably complex, such as a human being.
    it does not break the laws of physics for a human to all of a sudden come together. if the material is there, again, it could happen
    Actually it does because of the principle of entropy. biological systems contain significant molecular order. Entropy principles dictate that material processes do not generate order beyond what random chance can generate. It is incorrect to say that it is possible that molecular order all of a sudden was generated without a source of higher forms of molecular order. It is incorrect to say that if the material is there it could happen because the minimum requirement is both material and order.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by harvestein
    if the material is there, again, it could happen
    I think it is a bit misleading to make this sound so reasonable.
    Could happen? yes, but in context, only after perhaps a trillion trillion times the age of the universe, even then i wouldnt put a quid on it happening.

    All probabilities become 100% when the timescale is infinity.
    No, this is incorrect. Probabilities of mutually exclusive events add to 1. Most events include mutually exclusive alternate events, thus probabilities of most possible events remain unaffected by long time periods.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Definitions are not static things, but instead are rather dynamic and change over time. Regardless, here is a "definition of life" I learned from a biologist a few years back at another site. It's simple, and it works.


    To be alive, an entity must have all 4 of the following characteristics:
    1. metabolize (have anabolism and catabolism)
    2. Grow
    3. Respond to stimuli
    4. Reproduce.



    Botta bing... What's next?
    With definition viruses are not alive. Not everyone would agree with that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by Shubee
    When I used the phrase, "advanced forms [of] life", I meant unquestionably complex, such as a human being.
    it does not break the laws of physics for a human to all of a sudden come together. if the material is there, again, it could happen
    Actually it does because of the principle of entropy. biological systems contain significant molecular order. Entropy principles dictate that material processes do not generate order beyond what random chance can generate.
    Even within the confines of the second law, the probability discussed above is still non-zero, so your criticism is quite irrelevant. Further, entropy principles say nothing about order relating to chance. It just speaks of a closed system. Depending on how you define your system parameters, energy could still be obtained from elsewhere to result in the order you're here now arguing against. So, yet again... you fail.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    With definition viruses are not alive. Not everyone would agree with that.
    Fair point. There is some controversy regarding viruses.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by Shubee
    When I used the phrase, "advanced forms [of] life", I meant unquestionably complex, such as a human being.
    it does not break the laws of physics for a human to all of a sudden come together. if the material is there, again, it could happen
    Actually it does because of the principle of entropy. biological systems contain significant molecular order. Entropy principles dictate that material processes do not generate order beyond what random chance can generate.
    Even within the confines of the second law, the probability discussed above is still non-zero, so your criticism is quite irrelevant.
    I disagree. Please demonstrate that the probability is non-zero. I suspect that both of you are assuming it is non-zero and have no empirical support.

    Further, entropy principles say nothing about order relating to chance. It just speaks of a closed system.
    No that is false. I suggest you review the principle which is derived from probability based on brownian motion and other random processes.

    Depending on how you define your system parameters, energy could still be obtained from elsewhere to result in the order you're here now arguing against. So, yet again... you fail.
    I am not speaking of thermal entropy. I am speaking of molecular entropy. A practical application of it is in molecular diffusion. I suggest you review this also.

    To recap, there are at least two necessary requirements to generate a complex ordered molecular system such as a biological organism. One is the material as has previously been suggested, the other is a source of molecular order greater than the order to be generated. the source of this order thus far eludes us.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Entropy principles dictate that material processes do not generate order beyond what random chance can generate.
    When you have figured out what you mean by "entropy principles", "material processes", and "random chance", you will have figured out why that statement is meaningless, false, or irrelevant. You can explain it then, to us.

    In the meantime, we are free to choose how to take it - I choose to take it as false. Individual snowflakes are highly ordered and highly improbable, and are generated by the millions with no difficulty through fairly simple physical processes operating in an environment devoid of such order.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by Shubee
    When I used the phrase, "advanced forms [of] life", I meant unquestionably complex, such as a human being.
    it does not break the laws of physics for a human to all of a sudden come together. if the material is there, again, it could happen
    Actually it does because of the principle of entropy. biological systems contain significant molecular order. Entropy principles dictate that material processes do not generate order beyond what random chance can generate.
    Even within the confines of the second law, the probability discussed above is still non-zero, so your criticism is quite irrelevant.
    I disagree. Please demonstrate that the probability is non-zero. I suspect that both of you are assuming it is non-zero and have no empirical support.
    No, it is near impossible, and there will likely never be empirical support for this. The quantum level this statement is still of a positive non-zero probability. The thing is, it's so low that, truly, it will likely never happen. truth be told, it won't. But, there is always a chance of it happening, and it wouldn't affect entropy at all.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by Shubee
    When I used the phrase, "advanced forms [of] life", I meant unquestionably complex, such as a human being.
    it does not break the laws of physics for a human to all of a sudden come together. if the material is there, again, it could happen
    Actually it does because of the principle of entropy. biological systems contain significant molecular order. Entropy principles dictate that material processes do not generate order beyond what random chance can generate.
    Even within the confines of the second law, the probability discussed above is still non-zero, so your criticism is quite irrelevant.
    I disagree. Please demonstrate that the probability is non-zero. I suspect that both of you are assuming it is non-zero and have no empirical support.
    No, it is near impossible, and there will likely never be empirical support for this.
    Correct, it is an insupportable assumption.

    The quantum level this statement is still of a positive non-zero probability.
    Molecular processes are macro processes not quantum processes so it makes little sense to reference quantum uncertainty.

    The thing is, it's so low that, truly, it will likely never happen. truth be told, it won't. But, there is always a chance of it happening, and it wouldn't affect entropy at all.
    Indeed it won't because it doesn't have sufficient and necessary conditions to occur and therefore empirical evidence suggests the probability is zero.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by Shubee
    When I used the phrase, "advanced forms [of] life", I meant unquestionably complex, such as a human being.
    it does not break the laws of physics for a human to all of a sudden come together. if the material is there, again, it could happen
    Actually it does because of the principle of entropy. biological systems contain significant molecular order. Entropy principles dictate that material processes do not generate order beyond what random chance can generate.
    Even within the confines of the second law, the probability discussed above is still non-zero, so your criticism is quite irrelevant.
    I disagree. Please demonstrate that the probability is non-zero. I suspect that both of you are assuming it is non-zero and have no empirical support.
    No, it is near impossible, and there will likely never be empirical support for this.
    Correct, it is an insupportable assumption.

    The quantum level this statement is still of a positive non-zero probability.
    Molecular processes are macro processes not quantum processes so it makes little sense to reference quantum uncertainty.

    The thing is, it's so low that, truly, it will likely never happen. truth be told, it won't. But, there is always a chance of it happening, and it wouldn't affect entropy at all.
    Indeed it won't because it doesn't have sufficient and necessary conditions to occur and therefore empirical evidence suggests the probability is zero.
    Yes, empirically, it is null. Theoretically, it is non-zero, and the quantum level is actually the most important element to this, processes be-damned, there is a chance that a human can form alive. necessary conditions aside. That's the point of the quantum. Deal with it.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Indeed it won't because it doesn't have sufficient and necessary conditions to occur and therefore empirical evidence suggests the probability is zero.
    Yes, empirically, it is null. Theoretically, it is non-zero, and the quantum level is actually the most important element to this, processes be-damned, there is a chance that a human can form alive. necessary conditions aside. That's the point of the quantum. Deal with it.
    I don't understand how there can be a possibility of an event that lacks necessary conditions. To me we would say that theoretically it cannot happen. Am I missing something? I also don't understand how quantum uncertainty improves this situation. Are you sure you understand QM?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Reality doesn't really care what you CAN and what you CANNOT understand, cypress. That's just the way it is. Making personal comments and attempting to poison the well with Arcane_Mathematicians knowledge and ability won't change the truth of what he has shared.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Reality doesn't really care what you CAN and what you CANNOT understand, cypress. That's just the way it is. Making personal comments and attempting to poison the well with Arcane_Mathematicians knowledge and ability won't change the truth of what he has shared.
    What is the reality? Arcane made a claim of fact that is predicated on an accurate assessment of what are necessary conditions for something to occur and predicated on an accurate description of quantum uncertainty as applied to macro events. His knowledge and ability are quite relevant to uncovering the facts. Can you tell us about the reality of this situation? I somehow doubt it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    The probability is non-zero. That's the reality, and this has been explained above.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Indeed it won't because it doesn't have sufficient and necessary conditions to occur and therefore empirical evidence suggests the probability is zero.
    Yes, empirically, it is null. Theoretically, it is non-zero, and the quantum level is actually the most important element to this, processes be-damned, there is a chance that a human can form alive. necessary conditions aside. That's the point of the quantum. Deal with it.
    I don't understand how there can be a possibility of an event that lacks necessary conditions. To me we would say that theoretically it cannot happen. Am I missing something? I also don't understand how quantum uncertainty improves this situation. Are you sure you understand QM?
    I have a fair understanding of QM. It's not a thoroughly rigorous understanding, no, but it is decent.

    That's irrelevant though. Through quantum uncertainty, quite literally, anything is possible though highly improbable. That's the point. It may happen, but it likely will not. IIRC there's a video by Brian Greene on QM that get's my point across quite well
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    If one or more necessary conditions are lacking how can the probability be greater than zero? Aren't the opinions expressed above just assumptions? Does QM uncertainty guarantee that anything is possible including any imaginable macro event? or that any possible quantum event can occur without predictability?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    This is what I love so much about cypress posting in these forums. He tosses out so many wild inaccuracies and misrepresentations that everyone feels compelled to correct them so there is no misunderstanding among readers. Then, cypress clings to his already demolished position and within a few short posts the original context of the exchange gets lost.

    We were talking in physics whether or not it was possible for a human to spontaneously generate.
    The answer is unequivocally yes, it is possible, but so exceedingly unlikely as to be considered as never going to happen... The probability is non-zero, but can be treated as zero in practical terms.
    Now, we're arguing about entropy and if QM guarantees unpredictability because cypress wants to be a contrarian.


    Yes, everything is possible. There is inherent uncertainty in the system. Some things are more probable than others, but those other things are still a remote possibility. Based on our exchanges elsewhere, I'm sure this doesn't sit well with the god fog in which you exist, but that truly doesn't matter. Nature has no obligation to make sense to you. If you don't get it, that's your problem. It doesn't make it untrue or invalid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    This is what I love so much about cypress posting in these forums. He tosses out so many wild inaccuracies and misrepresentations that everyone feels compelled to correct them so there is no misunderstanding among readers. Then, cypress clings to his already demolished position and within a few short posts the original context of the exchange gets lost.

    We were talking in physics whether or not it was possible for a human to spontaneously generate.
    The answer is unequivocally yes, it is possible, but so exceedingly unlikely as to be considered as never going to happen... The probability is non-zero, but can be treated as zero in practical terms.
    Now, we're arguing about entropy and if QM guarantees unpredictability because cypress wants to be a contrarian.
    Nonsense. Inow, if you and arcane know that it is possible for a human to spontaneously generate (from material and energy only and it is unequivocal by QM theory, then you would easily provide the evidence and mathematical proof. The reality is that you made this shit up, you have no idea how to support it and you just wish you could drop the issue. It goes on and on because you refuse to admit your error.

    Yes, everything is possible.
    False. If I am wrong provide the proof to your statement. You made the claim, please prove it.

    There is inherent uncertainty in the system.
    True. And because of the uncertainty in QM anything that is possible can occur without ability to predict it. It is incorrect to say that anything is possible. This is simply not the case. Thus far it has not been established that any and everything imaginable is possible due to QM.

    Some things are more probable than others, but those other things are still a remote possibility. Based on our exchanges elsewhere, I'm sure this doesn't sit well with the god fog in which you exist, but that truly doesn't matter.
    Actually it would be a boon to theists if QM could establish that anything is possible because then all those miracles are suddenly explained by citation of QM. Sorry, no.

    Nature has no obligation to make sense to you. If you don't get it, that's your problem. It doesn't make it untrue or invalid.
    What I get is that you are too proud to admit error. It's easy Inow, just admit that you made an assumption and this thread can proceed. Otherwise provide the evidence and QM (mathematical) proof that site rules require and I will admit I made an error.

    Let me help you get started with your attempt to demonstrate your point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    I readily admit to errors in those instances where I am mistaken, cypress. This is not one of those instances.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    lol
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    The answer is unequivocally yes, it is possible, but so exceedingly unlikely as to be considered as never going to happen... The probability is non-zero, but can be treated as zero in practical terms.
    Which is what I said on page 1.

    It is about as likely as having this thread come to a logical conclusion in finite time, given the proclivities of a few of the participants, as you noted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    421
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    That's irrelevant though. Through quantum uncertainty, quite literally, anything is possible though highly improbable. That's the point. It may happen, but it likely will not. IIRC there's a video by Brian Greene on QM that get's my point across quite well
    I haven't read the rest of the thread, but this statement by itself is not true. Within quantum mechanics, there are still a lot of restrictions on what can and can't happen in various physical situations. For example, if a particle is confined inside a potential energy well, there are a whole spectrum of small energy values that the particle can never achieve (i.e., the probability of measuring the particle to have those energies is zero).

    To give another example: consider a particle which can occupy a range of discrete energy states. If the particle is occupying a high energy state, and you perturb it, it will tend to fall into a lower energy state. However, there are sometimes restrictions as to WHICH lower energy state the particle can fall into. That is, the probabilities associated to certain state transitions turn out to be zero.

    The point to take from this is that, while quantum mechanics forces us to evaluate the outcomes of experiments in terms of probabilities, this does NOT mean that every outcome has probability > 0 (or, for that matter, that no outcome has probability = 1). It really depends on the situation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    The answer is unequivocally yes, it is possible, but so exceedingly unlikely as to be considered as never going to happen... The probability is non-zero, but can be treated as zero in practical terms.
    Which is what I said on page 1.
    Your assessment seems incomplete. You agreed that the probability of quantum particles all appearing at the correct location may be non-zero(though even this has not been shown), but that is not a sufficient condition to form a human. Macro events must occur (including chemical bonding) and the necessary conditions for these macro events cannot be inferred from QM theory. In addition to the material, we also require a particular state of molecular entropy to ensure molecular ordering. QM may allow for the particles but not the macro configuration.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    The answer is unequivocally yes, it is possible, but so exceedingly unlikely as to be considered as never going to happen... The probability is non-zero, but can be treated as zero in practical terms.
    Which is what I said on page 1.
    Your assessment seems incomplete. You agreed that the probability of quantum particles all appearing at the correct location may be non-zero(though even this has not been shown), but that is not a sufficient condition to form a human. Macro events must occur (including chemical bonding) and the necessary conditions for these macro events cannot be inferred from QM theory. In addition to the material, we also require a particular state of molecular entropy to ensure molecular ordering. QM may allow for the particles but not the macro configuration.
    Rubbish. QM and in particular quantum electrodynamics implicity iincludes all of chemistry, and in fact all of everyday experience in which gravity can be ignored.

    Solving the equations explicitly is quite another kettle of fish, but the principles are all there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    To accept this, one would have to believe that QM state equations provides a basis to show in actuality the ability to overturn thermodynamic principles of enthalpy and entropy. We may as well say that it is possible that the entire universe could suddenly revert to a state very near to the beginning. Clearly there are restrictions on what can and can't happen. To argue otherwise seems to be due to misinterpretation of the meaning of the equations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    6
    I guess it could be possible. Remember, not every life bearing planet will be the same as earth. Consider the Rotation of the planet, and it's Rate of evolution. Life on earth evolves slowly many because species have a slow reproduction rate. Earth is a Utopia. Imagine a ravinous world with an incredibility dense population of simple organisms. The only way to survive would be rapid evolution. Eventualy the weaker species would die out, leaving only the stronger, smarter species. Ever see the movie Evolution? haha.. Im basing that Hypothisis off what i've learned, not the movie btw..
    "Close enough."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Cypress your continued existence as structured organism is in defiance of the 2nd Law. Please desist immediately.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Junior Steiner101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    251
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by harvestein
    if the material is there, again, it could happen
    I think it is a bit misleading to make this sound so reasonable.
    Could happen? yes, but in context, only after perhaps a trillion trillion times the age of the universe, even then i wouldnt put a quid on it happening.

    All probabilities become 100% when the timescale is infinity.
    No, this is incorrect. Probabilities of mutually exclusive events add to 1. Most events include mutually exclusive alternate events, thus probabilities of most possible events remain unaffected by long time periods.
    I was referring to the fact that the probability is non-zero, therefore an infinite timescale means that the probability is one or "almost surely" for want of a less ambiguous mathematical term.

    This is not the same as saying it will definately happen in any given timescale. you seem to struggle with the notion of something having a non-zero probability, even if that probability is so unimaginably small.

    A roulette wheel could land on the number 8 for a billion spins in a row, but it does not happen, or at least no casino has been open longer than the age of the universe for it to happen.

    This is why i was saying it was misleading to make it sound reasonable, it opens up a pandora's box, and brings people like yourself out of the woodwork.
    'Aint no thing like a chicken wing'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by harvestein

    I was referring to the fact that the probability is non-zero, therefore an infinite timescale means that the probability is one or "almost surely" for want of a less ambiguous mathematical term.

    This is not the same as saying it will definately happen in any given timescale. you seem to struggle with the notion of something having a non-zero probability, even if that probability is so unimaginably small.
    Right.

    If you put a monkey at a typewriter there is positive probability that the monkey will produce the complete works of Shakespeare. So, if you put a monkey at a typewriter and wait long enough the complete works of Shakespeare will be produced with probability 1.

    However, if you assume a reasonable typing speed the expected time for this to occur far exceeds the age of the universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    [quote="harvestein"]
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by harvestein
    if the material is there, again, it could happen
    I think it is a bit misleading to make this sound so reasonable.
    Could happen? yes, but in context, only after perhaps a trillion trillion times the age of the universe, even then i wouldnt put a quid on it happening.

    All probabilities become 100% when the timescale is infinity.
    No, this is incorrect. Probabilities of mutually exclusive events add to 1. Most events include mutually exclusive alternate events, thus probabilities of most possible events remain unaffected by long time periods.
    I was referring to the fact that the probability is non-zero, therefore an infinite timescale means that the probability is one or "almost surely" for want of a less ambiguous mathematical term.

    With the added necessary conditions that similar conditions continue to exist and therefore new attempts are made continuously that is previous outcomes do not interfere with these attempts. It is unclear that this is possible in a real world.

    This is not the same as saying it will definately happen in any given timescale. you seem to struggle with the notion of something having a non-zero probability, even if that probability is so unimaginably small.
    No I understand this conceptually.

    This is why i was saying it was misleading to make it sound reasonable, it opens up a pandora's box, and brings people like yourself out of the woodwork.
    It was the absence the descriptors of these additional conditions that led to my correction. Dr. Rocket's typewriter example describes a situation where independent retries are part of the set-up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Cypress your continued existence as structured organism is in defiance of the 2nd Law. Please desist immediately.
    LOL. Parents provide a source of more than ample order to make life without defiance of the second law.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    To accept this, one would have to believe that QM state equations provides a basis to show in actuality the ability to overturn thermodynamic principles of enthalpy and entropy. We may as well say that it is possible that the entire universe could suddenly revert to a state very near to the beginning. Clearly there are restrictions on what can and can't happen. To argue otherwise seems to be due to misinterpretation of the meaning of the equations.
    Thermdynamics is statistical in nature. Thermodynamics laws are not absolute. It is quite possible to violate the second law, just not very likely.

    The question posed in this thread has teetered on the issue of what is "possible", vs "probable" or "so improbable as to be essentially impossible".

    The return of the universe to the ground state falls in to the realm of the possible but so improbable as to be essentially impossible. Far less probable, for instance, than for a monkey to reproduce the complete works of Shakespeare.

    But in that context, QM and statistical physics in general do indeed show it is possible to violate the second law. None of us are going to live long enough to see it happen. The universe may not last that long either.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Junior Steiner101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    251
    Quote Originally Posted by Cypress
    With the added necessary conditions that similar conditions continue to exist and therefore new attempts are made continuously that is previous outcomes do not interfere with these attempts. It is unclear that this is possible in a real world.
    Im sorry, you will need to explain this again. I have no idea what that means. Sounds like a molested form of the gamblers fallacy.

    Please explain how a human spontaneously appearing or not appearing has any effect on the probability of it happening/not happening again at any instance in future?
    The probabilities have no memory, I do not understand why you think that affects the truth of what i have said?

    Ive just realised how ridiculous this thread is.
    'Aint no thing like a chicken wing'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Thermdynamics is statistical in nature. Thermodynamics laws are not absolute. It is quite possible to violate the second law, just not very likely.

    The question posed in this thread has teetered on the issue of what is "possible", vs "probable" or "so improbable as to be essentially impossible".

    The return of the universe to the ground state falls in to the realm of the possible but so improbable as to be essentially impossible. Far less probable, for instance, than for a monkey to reproduce the complete works of Shakespeare.

    But in that context, QM and statistical physics in general do indeed show it is possible to violate the second law. None of us are going to live long enough to see it happen. The universe may not last that long either.
    To say that this is "possible" is suppositon based on theoretical mathematical constructs that may or may not apply In the macro world they do not apply. It is speculation without benefit of empirical validation. Earlier I described it as likely a misunderstanding of application of the state equations. There are numerous mathematical constructs that do not have an analog in the real world so untill we have empirical validation for example that QM provides a basis to violate thermodynamic laws, we should be careful about what we claim is possible. I suggest reading the link I provided earlier.

    Harvestein, you are right this thread is ridiculous, though I am not sure which is more so, the OP or the supposition that anything is possible. With that as a supposition as framed, if states are assumed independent, your description may be correct. My response was to the general case where independence is not assured. Sorry to cause confusion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Junior Steiner101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    251
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    To say that this is "possible" is suppositon based on theoretical mathematical constructs that may or may not apply In the macro world they do not apply. It is speculation without benefit of empirical validation.
    Ok I see your point, but the question your raising is whether uncertainty and probability in the quantum scale can have a causal effect on the macro scale.
    Im not sure you can seperate them, as they are one and the same universe.

    Allow me to use an example someone on the forum used previously, radioactive decay. In QM this is described statistically and with probabilities. Now, what is to stop a mass, say a 1kg uranium-238 mass decaying simultaneously into lead? Very highly improbable, but still possible. That could quite easily cause effects on macro scale.

    To deny that possibility, despite being considered impossible in practice, is to deny the validity of QM is it not?
    Are you suggesting there is some hidden determinism in QM that is currently eluding us?
    'Aint no thing like a chicken wing'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress

    To say that this is "possible" is suppositon based on theoretical mathematical constructs that may or may not apply In the macro world they do not apply. It is speculation without benefit of empirical validation. Earlier I described it as likely a misunderstanding of application of the state equations. There are numerous mathematical constructs that do not have an analog in the real world so untill we have empirical validation for example that QM provides a basis to violate thermodynamic laws, we should be careful about what we claim is possible. I suggest reading the link I provided earlier.
    Utter nonsense.

    Of course the phenomena is based on mathematical analysis of the physics involved. That is the purpose of physical theories.

    And of course there would be no empirical evidence for the specific event contemplated. But quantum mechanics has a great deal of empirical support as a theory, and it is fair to them use that theory to explore situations that are not amenable to direct experiment. That is done all the time in physics. The entire point is that the probability is extremely small. It is so small that occurrence in any time span on the order of the age of the universe will be highly unlikely. Hence it is practically impossible. But practically impossible does not mean absolutely impossible.

    BTW your earlier assertion that molecular processes are macroscopic and not governed by quantum mechanics is just plain wrong. An army of physical chemists would be glad to dispute this with you.

    In this context, and for the sort of low probability events being contemplated thermodynamics is totally irrelevant.

    Your link is nonsensical as well. Let us stick to rigorous physics and mathematics here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket

    BTW your earlier assertion that molecular processes are macroscopic and not governed by quantum mechanics is just plain wrong. An army of physical chemists would be glad to dispute this with you.
    Except, I did not say that or at least did not intend for it to be interpreted as you have. I spoke specifically of Quantum Uncertainty in the context of for example allowing for spontaneous effects like the appearance of particles where there were none and this uncertainty as an explanation for macro events that could violate for example thermodynamic laws. This is a theoretical concept based on mathematical models that have not been empiricaly confirmed at this level. I argue this could be a misinterpretation of the state equations.

    I completely agree that macro processes are governed by QM when properly interpreted.

    In this context, and for the sort of low probability events being contemplated thermodynamics is totally irrelevant.
    I have no idea how one could demonstrate that this statement is factually correct, do you?

    Your link is nonsensical as well. Let us stick to rigorous physics and mathematics here.
    Yes let's drop all this speculation and stick to what has been demonstrated.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by harvestein
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    To say that this is "possible" is suppositon based on theoretical mathematical constructs that may or may not apply In the macro world they do not apply. It is speculation without benefit of empirical validation.
    Ok I see your point, but the question your raising is whether uncertainty and probability in the quantum scale can have a causal effect on the macro scale.
    Im not sure you can seperate them, as they are one and the same universe.
    Agree that they cannot be separated. I also do not dispute the possibility of some causal effects. I question the extent of what is factually possible. I am suggesting that simply because math equations can in theory be derived to describe the possibility of events does not mean they are actual or can be actuallized.



    To deny that possibility, despite being considered impossible in practice, is to deny the validity of QM is it not?
    Yes it would, we need to be carefull to avoid changing the arguement into something it is not.

    Are you suggesting there is some hidden determinism in QM that is currently eluding us?
    No, I am suggesting that these specific concepts being discussed in this speculative thread have not been confirmed and I suggest that the equations are being misinterpreted causing some to make incorrect or at least premature assertions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Junior Steiner101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    251
    Although QM allows an extremely tiny chance that a 1KG mass of uranium can decay completely within a second, you are saying that it does not. Even though QM is established by experiment as a valid theory.

    Lets just be clear about this:

    You believe with no alternate theory or justification, that you can explicitly state that such an event is impossible, I.E. 0% probability.

    I am saying that a theory that has been validated by countless experiments states that statistically such an event is possible but the chance is so unimaginably tiny that it will not happen.

    you cannot state explicitly that an event such as the one I suggested has a 0% probability of occuring unless you are saying that QM is incorrect

    You can not "misinterpret" 0.000000000000001 for being 0, so why should it matter how many zeros are in there?


    [/i]
    'Aint no thing like a chicken wing'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by harvestein
    Although QM allows an extremely tiny chance that a 1KG mass of uranium can decay completely within a second, you are saying that it does not. Even though QM is established by experiment as a valid theory.
    You are again changing my argument. Please don't do this. Some QM state equations provide a mathematical basis to suggest a non-zero probability of imagined events. This is not the same as saying QM state equations demonstrate there is (that is conclusively) a non-zero probability that these imagined events can actually happen. Notice that I have not said that QM (conclusively) does not allow for this possibility.

    Lets just be clear about this:

    You believe with no alternate theory or justification, that you can explicitly state that such an event is impossible, I.E. 0% probability.
    Clarity is almost always good. I have good justification for my skeptism (recall that I have not said that this particular example is impossible) in your interpretation of the equations. I have empirical observation and uniform experience on my side. At this point, because we lack empirical validation, I properly claim you are speculating that it is possible. I suggest that your speculation likely arises out of a misinterpretation of the equations.

    I am saying that a theory that has been validated by countless experiments states that statistically such an event is possible but the chance is so unimaginably tiny that it will not happen.
    Yes, I understand that. However though much of QM has been validated, much of it remains unvalidated and unknown. The current subject is in the theoretical and traipsing on the unkown.

    you cannot state explicitly that an event such as the one I suggested has a 0% probability of occuring unless you are saying that QM is incorrect
    Correct and I did not, however, because logically there is a possibility that the equations are not properly formed or applied, I have good reason to question it, and every reason to point out that we don't know if you are correct or not. There is a possibility that it is incorrect or misunderstood. There is a great deal of work remaining in this area of QM. The empirical demonstrations elude us. Returning to the original claim, it is more correct to say we don't know if there is a possibility of a human spontaneously forming, but we have good indication that there is not.

    You can not "misinterpret" 0.000000000000001 for being 0, so why should it matter how many zeros are in there?
    It does not matter how many zeros there are. Numbers are not at issue, the equations are and equations can be misinterpreted that is if you can even come up with them. We don't even have the equations for the examples you employ. Or at least I am not aware of any.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    You can not "misinterpret" 0.000000000000001 for being 0, so why should it matter how many zeros are in there?
    It does not matter how many zeros there are. Numbers are not at issue, the equations are and equations can be misinterpreted that is if you can even come up with them. We don't even have the equations for the examples you employ. Or at least I am not aware of any.
    The equations exist. You just aren't aware of them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Thank-you Magi, for the correction. I should have limited my statements about existence of equations to the previous cases, that is excluding radioactive decay. I was focused on the "zero to hero" (human) example while writing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    That can be calculated as well, although not as easily.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •