[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: FW: Mixed State vs Superposition of States for Schrodinger's cat
[Bruno Marchal] "I consider a cigarette as a living organism, with a complex reproductive cycle involving humans..." [Philip Benjamin] This is a Darwinian view of life. https://www.britannica.com/science/life Dorion Sagan et al. General partner, Sciencewriters, Amherst, Massachusetts. Coauthor of Slanted Truths: Essays on Gaia, Symbiosis, and Evolution; What Is Life?; Cracking the Aging Code; and others. "Life, living matter and, as such, matter that shows certain attributes that include responsiveness, growth, metabolism, energy transformation, and reproduction. Although a noun, as with other defined entities, the word life might be better cast as a verb to reflect its essential status as a process. Life comprises individuals, living beings, assignable to groups (taxa). Each individual is composed of one or more minimal living units, called cells, and is capable of transformation of carbon-based and other compounds (metabolism), growth, and participation in reproductive acts...." "Conscious responsiveness, growth, metabolism, energy transformation, and reproduction" are not man-made machine properties. There is no machine that consciously falls down and worships its maker "man" as god!! Your "cigarette" no matter how smart you make it will never develop in a trillion years (by extrapolation) any such quality. It is subject to entropy. In fact, within a few years it disintegrates and "disappears" into oblivion. Dorion Sagan (writer, ecological philosopher, son of astronomer Carl Sagan and Biologist Lynn Margulis) is altogether avoiding the question of aseity here. But fearsome aseity shows up in-your-face. It is either dear matter or LIFE that can create both dead matter and other life forms that has aseity-- one of the two, not both. Entropy and DEATH cannot be self-existent-life first, death only after life. Death need be introduced-by whom or what? Is there any life-form today without chemistry? How can chemistry be complete without the chemistry of 95% (or 80%? ) of the universe that is made of invisible matter? Dark atoms may be made of sub-units of negligible mass relative to electrons but of the same mass ratios as the sub-units of "light-matter" (ordinary visible matter). (https://www.prlog.org/12085722-dr-philip-benjamin-explains-the-bio-chemistry-of-our-inner-selves-in-his-latest-book.html https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282154962_Bio_dark-Matter_Chemistry_Implications<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F282154962_Bio_dark-Matter_Chemistry_Implications&data=02%7C01%7C%7C13edb314d06a4c75aa8908d68dd6f642%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636852351721925645&sdata=0MoG5LbT1O9jDWxZesqIwFehJJdXUSyBjlhu9FVV7gU%3D&reserved=0> https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_spirit_our_energy_Is_spirit_dark_energy<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpost%2FIs_spirit_our_energy_Is_spirit_dark_energy&data=02%7C01%7C%7C13edb314d06a4c75aa8908d68dd6f642%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636852351721935644&sdata=YouGhNSGbFsgokwTWC%2BwvBGTCZgTazQwuViYJo9erLk%3D&reserved=0> Philip Benjamin From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 7:42 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: Mixed State vs Superposition of States for Schrodinger's cat On 27 Apr 2021, at 15:53, Philip Benjamin <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: Mixed State vs Superposition of States for Schrodinger's cat [Philip Benjamin] "No matter what people miss in notions of computer and computation as arithmetical notions. Everything physical is DEAD, unless it is ENDOWED with life". [Bruno Marchal] "This looks like vitalism to me, frankly". Also, you seem to assume a physical reality out there. That requires to abandon Mechanism (and thus Darwin, etc.). I find this very speculative. There are no evidences for primary matter or physicalism. [Philip Benjamin] There is not a single man-created mechanism that has "life" or reproductive-- genetically informed-- capability. I don't know that. I am not sure by what you mean by "life". Personally, I consider that the artificial/natural distinction is ... artificial. I consider a cigarette as a living organism, with a complex reproductive cycle involving humans... Life ia always and everywhere an ENDOWMENT not an EVLOTION mechanism. CpenPagan Interpretation is fundaMentally flawed. If you mean that Copenhague formulation of QM (often found in the textbook) is flawed, we agree. But with the methodology imposed by the Mechanist hypothesis, we cannot invoke the physical laws, unless the goal is to measure the degree of truth in Mechanism. The physical laws are "just" a deep invariant of the universal mind (the mind common to all universal machine or number, or combinator (which I am currently explains on Facebook, in case you missed my little course here some years ago). . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/SA0PR11MB4704D8336A51DB61AD92ACEEA8589%40SA0PR11MB4704.namprd11.prod.outlook.com.
