date:20190706

On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 6:34 PM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

*> The idea of the RNA world runs into trouble with the ribosome, which is
> a hugely complex system of RNA and proteins*


In the RNA world there would be nothing nearly as large and competent as
modern ribosomes and there would be no proteins at all, there would just be
short single strands of RNA floating in a sea of nucleotides. As far as I
know nobody has yet found a RNA string that could catalyze the duplication
of a string of nucleotides as large as itself, but they have found a RNA
string called tC19Z that could reliably copy, without the help of proteins,
RNA sequences 95 nucleotides long. And that is almost half as long as tC19Z
itself. I find that encouraging.

Ribozyme-Catalyzed Transcription of an Active Ribozyme


John K Clark






RNA sequences up to 95 letters
no be anything as big as a ribosome or any proteins at all, there would be
short single strands of RNA floating in a sea of nucleotides
neucteatides




On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 5:04:40 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 4:18 PM Lawrence Crowell 
>> wrote
>>
>>> > We have lots of hypotheses on this, but it is a point where
>>> biological evolution loses explanatory power, just as general relativity
>>> fails at the center of black hole collapse.
>>
>>
>> I think that's the key point, Darwinian Evolution can't take over until
>> you have a replicator of some sort, in fact I would say the origin of 
>> heredity
>> is the same thing as the origin of life. That first replicator was
>> certainly far simpler than anything alive today and it almost certainly
>> didn't have any DNA in it. RNA is only single stranded not double as DNA is
>> and it is usually much shorter too, and RNA would help in getting over the
>> chicken or the egg problem. RNA can carry information, not as well as DNA
>> can but it can do it. And RNA can act like an enzyme and catalyze
>> chemical reactions, not as well as proteins can but it can do it. So the
>> first RNA life would be very incompetent by modern standards but with
>> Darwin you don't have to be perfect you just have to be better than the
>> competition.
>>
>> In 1986 Nobel Laureate Walter Gilbert said in the journal Nature:
>>
>> "*One can contemplate an RNA world, containing only RNA molecules that
>> serve to catalyze the synthesis of themselves. The first step of evolution
>> proceeds then by RNA molecules performing the catalytic activities
>> necessary to assemble themselves from a nucleotide soup*."
>>
>> However some people, like Chemist Graham Cairns-Smith think that even the
>> RNA world, although far simpler than modern life, was still too complicated
>> to be the first replicator aka the first life. Cairns-Smith proposed that
>> the very first replicators were not organic at all but were clays were
>> information was encoded in a pattern of defects in silicate crystals. In
>> 1985 he wrote a book about it that is now online:
>>
>> Seven clues to the origin of life
>> 
>>
>> The problem with figuring out how life started is that chemicals usually
>> don't have fossils, so even evolutionary biologist and militant atheist
>> Richard Dawkins admits that although he likes the Cairns-Smith theory we
>> may never be able to say this is definitely how life started and it
>> couldn't have started any other way, the best we can do is find a plausible
>> way that life *could* have started.
>>
>>  John K Clark
>>
>
> The complexity group at Santa Fe Institute has a 3 month course on the
> origins of life. I thought about joining, but decided not because my plate
> is already a bit full and frankly all we really have to go with are
> hypotheses. The idea of the RNA world runs into trouble with the ribosome,
> which is a hugely complex system of RNA and proteins. How that got going is
> difficult to know.
>
> I had this idea about RNA interactions with carbon nanofibers. Could RNA
> coil up around these and these could serve as some system for translation?
> Maybe in time this became more complex with more RNA and proteins bound to
> the system. Eventually this evolved into the ribosome. I looked this up and
> found of course other had taken up this idea.
>
> LC
>
> --
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ff2e28bf-d34e-4100-8e03-8f5aea2b2a47%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Re: Entanglement Between Photons that have Never Coexisted


You are completely clueless, and in addition give false information about 
the subject.

@philipthrift

On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 6:50:29 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 6:04:18 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> *In conclusion, we have demonstrated quantum entanglement between two 
>> photons that do not share coexistence. Although one photon is measured even 
>> before the other is created, full quantum correlations were observed **by 
>> measuring the density matrix of the two photons, conditioned on the result 
>> of the projecting measurement.*
>>
>> A demonstration of retrocausation (retrodependency). 
>>
>> @philipthrift
>>
>
> NO!! That violates Bell's inequalities and this measurement was done with 
> the stats that violate Bell's inequalities.
>
> LC
>  
>
>>
>> On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 5:17:07 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>> This is interesting, where photons that existed at different times can 
>>> be entangled.
>>>
>>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.4191.pdf
>>>
>>> Entanglement Between Photons that have Never Coexisted 
>>>
>>> E. Megidish, A. Halevy, T. Shacham, T. Dvir, L. Dovrat, and H. S. 
>>> Eisenberg 
>>>
>>> Racah Institute of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 
>>> 91904, Israel 
>>>
>>> The role of the timing and order of quantum measurements is not just a 
>>> fundamental question of quantum mechanics, but also a puzzling one. Any 
>>> part of a quantum system that has finished evolving, can be measured 
>>> immediately or saved for later, without affecting the final results, 
>>> regardless of the continued evolution of the rest of the system. In 
>>> addition, the non-locality of quantum mechanics, as manifested by 
>>> entanglement, does not apply only to particles with spatial separation, but 
>>> also with temporal separation. Here we demonstrate these principles by 
>>> generating and fully characterizing an entangled pair of photons that never 
>>> coexisted. Using entanglement swapping between two temporally separated 
>>> photon pairs we entangle one photon from the first pair with another photon 
>>> from the second pair. The first photon was detected even before the other 
>>> was created. The observed quantum correlations manifest the non-locality of 
>>> quantum mechanics in spacetime. 
>>>
>>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/149955d4-389f-4a5c-852e-466b29b0ee18%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Entanglement Between Photons that have Never Coexisted

On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 6:04:18 PM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> *In conclusion, we have demonstrated quantum entanglement between two 
> photons that do not share coexistence. Although one photon is measured even 
> before the other is created, full quantum correlations were observed **by 
> measuring the density matrix of the two photons, conditioned on the result 
> of the projecting measurement.*
>
> A demonstration of retrocausation (retrodependency). 
>
> @philipthrift
>

NO!! That violates Bell's inequalities and this measurement was done with 
the stats that violate Bell's inequalities.

LC
 

>
> On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 5:17:07 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> This is interesting, where photons that existed at different times can be 
>> entangled.
>>
>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.4191.pdf
>>
>> Entanglement Between Photons that have Never Coexisted 
>>
>> E. Megidish, A. Halevy, T. Shacham, T. Dvir, L. Dovrat, and H. S. 
>> Eisenberg 
>>
>> Racah Institute of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 
>> 91904, Israel 
>>
>> The role of the timing and order of quantum measurements is not just a 
>> fundamental question of quantum mechanics, but also a puzzling one. Any 
>> part of a quantum system that has finished evolving, can be measured 
>> immediately or saved for later, without affecting the final results, 
>> regardless of the continued evolution of the rest of the system. In 
>> addition, the non-locality of quantum mechanics, as manifested by 
>> entanglement, does not apply only to particles with spatial separation, but 
>> also with temporal separation. Here we demonstrate these principles by 
>> generating and fully characterizing an entangled pair of photons that never 
>> coexisted. Using entanglement swapping between two temporally separated 
>> photon pairs we entangle one photon from the first pair with another photon 
>> from the second pair. The first photon was detected even before the other 
>> was created. The observed quantum correlations manifest the non-locality of 
>> quantum mechanics in spacetime. 
>>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/24516145-2c50-4dd3-8d65-33dee9c7af87%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The origin of life has not been explained

Panspermia just kicks the can down the road. It does not explain the 
origins of life, but rather how life got here and flourished. If the 
universe were eternal and stationary, what Fred Hoyle thought, then it 
would just be a part of this eternal recurrence of things. The big bang 
puts a past time limit on things. So some where life got going.

LC

On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 5:43:17 PM UTC-5, smitra wrote:
>
> Although there is an element of panspermia in this proposal, as I 
> explain in the conclusion, the panspermia element is a side issue as I 
> need to explain how something cooked up in space ends up on Earth. The 
> main problem to be solved is how to get from building blocks to 
> machines. The problem has actually little to do with biochemistry, it's 
> a mathematical problem because you would always stumble on that problem 
> in any model of artificial chemistry. The solution is percolation in 3 
> dimensions to get from building blocks to a large number of 
> micro-environments with features in the interior that can act as 
> catalysts. Each micro-environment breaks symmetries in different ways, 
> some are are better than others for harboring an RNA world than others. 
>
>
>
>
> On 06-07-2019 20:11, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: 
> > Panspermia for sure. Did it work that way in the universe? Maybe. I am 
> > guessing we'd require a close-by stellar activity place where life all 
> > started, and thus, floomed it's way to a hungry earth? My suspicion 
> > would be if we'd see life on the other planets in our solar system, 
> > your reasoning would be spot-on! Since life appears sketchy around 
> > these parts, I am no enthusiast of panspermia. It made for a great 
> > tale in Stephen Baxter's Evolution (2002), and one of Larry Niven's 
> > short tales however. (The Green Marauder). 
> > 
> > -Original Message- 
> >  From: smitra > 
> >  To: everything-list > 
> >  Sent: Sat, Jul 6, 2019 11:32 am 
> >  Subject: Re: The origin of life has not been explained 
> > 
> > https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.01945 [1] 
> > 
> > A followup article which focuses more on the mathematical issues is 
> > under construction, the key points are: 
> > 
> > 1) In interstellar space, simple organic compounds captured in small 
> > ice 
> > grains were subject to UV radiation and occasional heating due to 
> > incident cosmic rays (CR). This induced a bond percolation process 
> > that 
> > led to large clusters of organic molecules on a time scale of $gtrsim 
> > 10^6$ years. 
> > 
> > 2) On a proto-planet, such clusters can merge into loosely bound 
> > superclusters. The deep interior of such superclusters can provide for 
> > 
> > chemical micro-environments in which conventional models of 
> > abiogenesis 
> > driven by cold-warm cycles can be considered. 
> > 
> > 3) Rapid fluctuations in the chemical potentials of certain chemical 
> > compounds that can penetrate the supercluster, will be damped down. 
> > Long 
> > term gradual and periodic changes then dominate, allowing any 
> > biochemical systems inside the superclusters to more easily evolve 
> > toward exploiting the conditions in their micro-environments, compared 
> > 
> > to a similar system in the outside environment. 
> > 
> > 4) As the supercluster breaks up, the system experiences more of the 
> > shorter term fluctuations that has more of a random character. The 
> > system can then evolve to adapt to these fluctuations, when doing so 
> > right from the start might not have worked. 
> > 
> > 5) On a small fraction of the superclusters these processes led to 
> > microbes capable of surviving in the outside environment. 
> > 
> > 6) Microbes were transferred to Earth via a collision of a 
> > microbe-containing proto-planet with the Moon. Fragments containing 
> > microbes resulting from the giant impact rained down on the Earth. 
> > 
> > Saibal 
> > 
> > On 06-07-2019 10:48, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: 
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4sP1E1Jd_Y [2][1] 
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com . 
> >> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> >> 
> > 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a43531f9-d34c-4806-97f0-7665befc7e95%40googlegroups.com
>  
> > [3] 
> >> [2]. 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Links: 
> >> -- 
> >> [1] 
> >> 
> > 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4sP1E1Jd_Y=IwAR03cRVkBTOeYnPldcuLzFGCNiWqCR0dE5FENXF9JJtRlk75sbq5Dh2wxcY
>  
> > [4] 
> >> [2] 
> >> 
> > 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a43531f9-d34c-4806-97f0-7665befc7e95%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer
>  
> > [5] 
> > 
> > -- 
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> > Groups "Everything List" group. 
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving

Re: The origin of life has not been explained



On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 10:32:54 AM UTC-5, smitra wrote:
>
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.01945 
>
>
> A followup article which focuses more on the mathematical issues is 
> under construction, the key points are: 
>
> 1) In interstellar space, simple organic compounds captured in small ice 
> grains were subject to UV radiation and occasional heating due to 
> incident cosmic rays (CR). This induced a bond percolation process that 
> led to large clusters of organic molecules on a time scale of $\gtrsim 
> 10^6$ years. 
>
> 2) On a proto-planet, such clusters can merge into loosely bound 
> superclusters. The deep interior of such superclusters can provide for 
> chemical micro-environments in which conventional models of abiogenesis 
> driven by cold-warm cycles can be considered. 
>
> 3) Rapid fluctuations in the chemical potentials of certain chemical 
> compounds that can penetrate the supercluster, will be damped down. Long 
> term gradual and periodic changes then dominate, allowing any 
> biochemical systems inside the superclusters to more easily evolve 
> toward exploiting the conditions in their micro-environments, compared 
> to a similar system in the outside environment. 
>
> 4) As the supercluster breaks up, the system experiences more of the 
> shorter term fluctuations that has more of a random character. The 
> system can then evolve to adapt to these fluctuations, when doing so 
> right from the start might not have worked. 
>
> 5) On a small fraction of the superclusters these processes led to 
> microbes capable of surviving in the outside environment. 
>
> 6) Microbes were transferred to Earth via a collision of a 
> microbe-containing proto-planet with the Moon. Fragments containing 
> microbes resulting from the giant impact rained down on the Earth. 
>
>
> Saibal 
>
>
>
Interesting.

@philipthrift 

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1d7afe60-218e-4485-bdc9-00811a4a0d2b%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Entanglement Between Photons that have Never Coexisted



*In conclusion, we have demonstrated quantum entanglement between two 
photons that do not share coexistence. Although one photon is measured even 
before the other is created, full quantum correlations were observed **by 
measuring the density matrix of the two photons, conditioned on the result 
of the projecting measurement.*

A demonstration of retrocausation (retrodependency). 

@philipthrift

On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 5:17:07 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> This is interesting, where photons that existed at different times can be 
> entangled.
>
> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.4191.pdf
>
> Entanglement Between Photons that have Never Coexisted 
>
> E. Megidish, A. Halevy, T. Shacham, T. Dvir, L. Dovrat, and H. S. 
> Eisenberg 
>
> Racah Institute of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 
> 91904, Israel 
>
> The role of the timing and order of quantum measurements is not just a 
> fundamental question of quantum mechanics, but also a puzzling one. Any 
> part of a quantum system that has finished evolving, can be measured 
> immediately or saved for later, without affecting the final results, 
> regardless of the continued evolution of the rest of the system. In 
> addition, the non-locality of quantum mechanics, as manifested by 
> entanglement, does not apply only to particles with spatial separation, but 
> also with temporal separation. Here we demonstrate these principles by 
> generating and fully characterizing an entangled pair of photons that never 
> coexisted. Using entanglement swapping between two temporally separated 
> photon pairs we entangle one photon from the first pair with another photon 
> from the second pair. The first photon was detected even before the other 
> was created. The observed quantum correlations manifest the non-locality of 
> quantum mechanics in spacetime. 
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/702eb3d3-21c6-4124-9297-0b72850b8784%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The origin of life has not been explained

2019-07-06 Thread smitra

Although there is an element of panspermia in this proposal, as I
explain in the conclusion, the panspermia element is a side issue as I
need to explain how something cooked up in space ends up on Earth. The
main problem to be solved is how to get from building blocks to
machines. The problem has actually little to do with biochemistry, it's
a mathematical problem because you would always stumble on that problem
in any model of artificial chemistry. The solution is percolation in 3
dimensions to get from building blocks to a large number of
micro-environments with features in the interior that can act as
catalysts. Each micro-environment breaks symmetries in different ways,
some are are better than others for harboring an RNA world than others.

On 06-07-2019 20:11, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

Panspermia for sure. Did it work that way in the universe? Maybe. I am
guessing we'd require a close-by stellar activity place where life all
started, and thus, floomed it's way to a hungry earth? My suspicion
would be if we'd see life on the other planets in our solar system,
your reasoning would be spot-on! Since life appears sketchy around
these parts, I am no enthusiast of panspermia. It made for a great
tale in Stephen Baxter's Evolution (2002), and one of Larry Niven's
short tales however. (The Green Marauder).

-Original Message-
From: smitra
To: everything-list
Sent: Sat, Jul 6, 2019 11:32 am
Subject: Re: The origin of life has not been explained

https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.01945 [1]

A followup article which focuses more on the mathematical issues is
under construction, the key points are:

1) In interstellar space, simple organic compounds captured in small
ice
grains were subject to UV radiation and occasional heating due to
incident cosmic rays (CR). This induced a bond percolation process
that
led to large clusters of organic molecules on a time scale of $gtrsim
10^6$ years.

2) On a proto-planet, such clusters can merge into loosely bound
superclusters. The deep interior of such superclusters can provide for

chemical micro-environments in which conventional models of
abiogenesis
driven by cold-warm cycles can be considered.

3) Rapid fluctuations in the chemical potentials of certain chemical
compounds that can penetrate the supercluster, will be damped down.
Long
term gradual and periodic changes then dominate, allowing any
biochemical systems inside the superclusters to more easily evolve
toward exploiting the conditions in their micro-environments, compared

to a similar system in the outside environment.

4) As the supercluster breaks up, the system experiences more of the
shorter term fluctuations that has more of a random character. The
system can then evolve to adapt to these fluctuations, when doing so
right from the start might not have worked.

5) On a small fraction of the superclusters these processes led to
microbes capable of surviving in the outside environment.

6) Microbes were transferred to Earth via a collision of a
microbe-containing proto-planet with the Moon. Fragments containing
microbes resulting from the giant impact rained down on the Earth.

Saibal

On 06-07-2019 10:48, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4sP1E1Jd_Y [2][1]

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a43531f9-d34c-4806-97f0-7665befc7e95%40googlegroups.com
[3]

[2].

Links:
--
[1]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4sP1E1Jd_Y=IwAR03cRVkBTOeYnPldcuLzFGCNiWqCR0dE5FENXF9JJtRlk75sbq5Dh2wxcY
[4]

[2]

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a43531f9-d34c-4806-97f0-7665befc7e95%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer
[5]

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d3e4b4989f9989d42135d2106294e71e%40zonnet.nl.

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/272321496.3596453.1562436694561%40mail.yahoo.com
[6].

Links:
--
[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.01945
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4sP1E1Jd_Y
[3]
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a43531f9-d34c-4806-97f0-7665befc7e95%40googlegroups.com
[4]

Re: The origin of life has not been explained

On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 5:04:40 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 4:18 PM Lawrence Crowell  > wrote
>
>> > We have lots of hypotheses on this, but it is a point where biological 
>> evolution loses explanatory power, just as general relativity fails at the 
>> center of black hole collapse. 
>
>
> I think that's the key point, Darwinian Evolution can't take over until 
> you have a replicator of some sort, in fact I would say the origin of 
> heredity 
> is the same thing as the origin of life. That first replicator was 
> certainly far simpler than anything alive today and it almost certainly 
> didn't have any DNA in it. RNA is only single stranded not double as DNA is 
> and it is usually much shorter too, and RNA would help in getting over the 
> chicken or the egg problem. RNA can carry information, not as well as DNA 
> can but it can do it. And RNA can act like an enzyme and catalyze 
> chemical reactions, not as well as proteins can but it can do it. So the 
> first RNA life would be very incompetent by modern standards but with 
> Darwin you don't have to be perfect you just have to be better than the 
> competition.  
>
> In 1986 Nobel Laureate Walter Gilbert said in the journal Nature: 
>
> "*One can contemplate an RNA world, containing only RNA molecules that 
> serve to catalyze the synthesis of themselves. The first step of evolution 
> proceeds then by RNA molecules performing the catalytic activities 
> necessary to assemble themselves from a nucleotide soup*."
>
> However some people, like Chemist Graham Cairns-Smith think that even the 
> RNA world, although far simpler than modern life, was still too complicated 
> to be the first replicator aka the first life. Cairns-Smith proposed that 
> the very first replicators were not organic at all but were clays were 
> information was encoded in a pattern of defects in silicate crystals. In 
> 1985 he wrote a book about it that is now online:
>
> Seven clues to the origin of life 
> 
>
> The problem with figuring out how life started is that chemicals usually 
> don't have fossils, so even evolutionary biologist and militant atheist 
> Richard Dawkins admits that although he likes the Cairns-Smith theory we 
> may never be able to say this is definitely how life started and it 
> couldn't have started any other way, the best we can do is find a plausible 
> way that life *could* have started.   
>
>  John K Clark
>

The complexity group at Santa Fe Institute has a 3 month course on the 
origins of life. I thought about joining, but decided not because my plate 
is already a bit full and frankly all we really have to go with are 
hypotheses. The idea of the RNA world runs into trouble with the ribosome, 
which is a hugely complex system of RNA and proteins. How that got going is 
difficult to know. 

I had this idea about RNA interactions with carbon nanofibers. Could RNA 
coil up around these and these could serve as some system for translation? 
Maybe in time this became more complex with more RNA and proteins bound to 
the system. Eventually this evolved into the ribosome. I looked this up and 
found of course other had taken up this idea.

LC 

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ff2e28bf-d34e-4100-8e03-8f5aea2b2a47%40googlegroups.com.

Entanglement Between Photons that have Never Coexisted

This is interesting, where photons that existed at different times can be
entangled.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.4191.pdf

Entanglement Between Photons that have Never Coexisted

E. Megidish, A. Halevy, T. Shacham, T. Dvir, L. Dovrat, and H. S. Eisenberg

Racah Institute of Physics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem
91904, Israel

The role of the timing and order of quantum measurements is not just a
fundamental question of quantum mechanics, but also a puzzling one. Any
part of a quantum system that has finished evolving, can be measured
immediately or saved for later, without affecting the final results,
regardless of the continued evolution of the rest of the system. In
addition, the non-locality of quantum mechanics, as manifested by
entanglement, does not apply only to particles with spatial separation, but
also with temporal separation. Here we demonstrate these principles by
generating and fully characterizing an entangled pair of photons that never
coexisted. Using entanglement swapping between two temporally separated
photon pairs we entangle one photon from the first pair with another photon
from the second pair. The first photon was detected even before the other
was created. The observed quantum correlations manifest the non-locality of
quantum mechanics in spacetime.

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/74dc9700-4252-4dc8-b938-73c685a2a4f2%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The origin of life has not been explained

On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 4:18 PM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote

> > We have lots of hypotheses on this, but it is a point where biological
> evolution loses explanatory power, just as general relativity fails at the
> center of black hole collapse.

I think that's the key point, Darwinian Evolution can't take over until you
have a replicator of some sort, in fact I would say the origin of heredity
is the same thing as the origin of life. That first replicator was
certainly far simpler than anything alive today and it almost certainly
didn't have any DNA in it. RNA is only single stranded not double as DNA is
and it is usually much shorter too, and RNA would help in getting over the
chicken or the egg problem. RNA can carry information, not as well as DNA
can but it can do it. And RNA can act like an enzyme and catalyze chemical
reactions, not as well as proteins can but it can do it. So the first RNA
life would be very incompetent by modern standards but with Darwin you
don't have to be perfect you just have to be better than the competition.

In 1986 Nobel Laureate Walter Gilbert said in the journal Nature:

"*One can contemplate an RNA world, containing only RNA molecules that
serve to catalyze the synthesis of themselves. The first step of evolution
proceeds then by RNA molecules performing the catalytic activities
necessary to assemble themselves from a nucleotide soup*."

However some people, like Chemist Graham Cairns-Smith think that even the
RNA world, although far simpler than modern life, was still too complicated
to be the first replicator aka the first life. Cairns-Smith proposed that
the very first replicators were not organic at all but were clays were
information was encoded in a pattern of defects in silicate crystals. In
1985 he wrote a book about it that is now online:

Seven clues to the origin of life

The problem with figuring out how life started is that chemicals usually
don't have fossils, so even evolutionary biologist and militant atheist
Richard Dawkins admits that although he likes the Cairns-Smith theory we
may never be able to say this is definitely how life started and it
couldn't have started any other way, the best we can do is find a plausible
way that life *could* have started.

John K Clark

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3h7T4nzBVPcsMcnm2WBVPnZ%2BYzSf%2BKmFeHEbA5zubMsQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The origin of life has not been explained

On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 5:53:28 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 3:48:12 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4sP1E1Jd_Y 
>> 
>>
>
>
>
> You know that this YouTube channel - *T**he Discovery Science News 
> Channel is the official Youtube channel of Discovery Institute's Center for 
> Science & Culture* - is via a conservative evangelical Christian 
> organization.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute
>
> *The Discovery Institute (DI) is a politically conservative non-profit 
> think tank based in Seattle, Washington, that advocates the 
> pseudoscientific concept of intelligent design (ID). Its "Teach the 
> Controversy" campaign aims to permit the teaching of anti-evolution, 
> intelligent-design beliefs in United States public high school science 
> courses in place of accepted scientific theories, positing that a 
> scientific controversy exists over these subjects.*
>
> *Center for Science and Culture (CSC) promotes "a rigorously God-centered 
> view of creation, including a new 'science' based solidly on theism.*
>
> @philipthrift
>

The speaker James Tour also signed the *Scientific Dissent from Darwinism*, 
which is a bit like the list of 100 physicists who disagreed with Einstein. 
Einstein quipped back, why do you need 100, when only 1 with a correct 
argument would suffice? Tour is a fundy, and while he may have done 
reasonable research, he appears religiously biased here. I also can tell in 
the way he talks that he can pound people down with words pretty well.

Tour is right in that we do not know the origins of life. We have lots of 
hypotheses on this, but it is a point where biological evolution loses 
explanatory power, just as general relativity fails at the center of black 
hole collapse. Tour though makes the implicit statement that this will 
never be answered, or that it is a scientific impossibility to know. The 
real problem is that we have no data; we have a complete paucity of data on 
the chemistry that lead to the development of life. We might find such data 
on other planets, and maybe Mars is a start. Maybe prebiotic chemistry has 
degraded and been lost there, so maybe Enceladus or ... ? We may even in 
fact never find such data and be left dangling with only hypotheticals. We 
are in a better position to understand the origins of the universe than the 
origins of life, and this question may be with us for a while. 

The problem I have with people such as Tour is the same I would have with 
similar of argumenta by similar people in the 17th century who might say we 
humans can never know the principles of planetary motion. They would argue 
this is the province of God and His heavenly hosts and that we will never 
find physical principles when this is all a matter of divine providence and 
supernatural power. The net effect of such an argument is to stop inquiry.

LC

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/056366b1-a6a7-4cf1-b6e2-5d25c4126577%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The origin of life has not been explained

2019-07-06 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

Panspermia for sure. Did it work that way in the universe? Maybe. I am guessing 
we'd require a close-by stellar activity place where life all started, and 
thus, floomed it's way to a hungry earth? My suspicion would be if we'd see 
life on the other planets in our solar system, your reasoning would be spot-on! 
Since life appears sketchy around these parts, I am no enthusiast of 
panspermia. It made for a great tale in Stephen Baxter's Evolution (2002), and 
one of Larry Niven's short tales however. (The Green Marauder).

-Original Message-
From: smitra 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Jul 6, 2019 11:32 am
Subject: Re: The origin of life has not been explained

https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.01945

A followup article which focuses more on the mathematical issues is 
under construction, the key points are:

1) In interstellar space, simple organic compounds captured in small ice 
grains were subject to UV radiation and occasional heating due to 
incident cosmic rays (CR). This induced a bond percolation process that 
led to large clusters of organic molecules on a time scale of $\gtrsim 
10^6$ years.

2) On a proto-planet, such clusters can merge into loosely bound 
superclusters. The deep interior of such superclusters can provide for 
chemical micro-environments in which conventional models of abiogenesis 
driven by cold-warm cycles can be considered.

3) Rapid fluctuations in the chemical potentials of certain chemical 
compounds that can penetrate the supercluster, will be damped down. Long 
term gradual and periodic changes then dominate, allowing any 
biochemical systems inside the superclusters to more easily evolve 
toward exploiting the conditions in their micro-environments, compared 
to a similar system in the outside environment.

4) As the supercluster breaks up, the system experiences more of the 
shorter term fluctuations that has more of a random character. The 
system can then evolve to adapt to these fluctuations, when doing so 
right from the start might not have worked.

5) On a small fraction of the superclusters these processes led to 
microbes capable of surviving in the outside environment.

6) Microbes were transferred to Earth via a collision of a 
microbe-containing proto-planet with the Moon. Fragments containing 
microbes resulting from the giant impact rained down on the Earth.

Saibal

On 06-07-2019 10:48, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4sP1E1Jd_Y [1]
> 
>  --
>  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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>  To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a43531f9-d34c-4806-97f0-7665befc7e95%40googlegroups.com
> [2].
> 
> 
> Links:
> --
> [1]
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4sP1E1Jd_Y=IwAR03cRVkBTOeYnPldcuLzFGCNiWqCR0dE5FENXF9JJtRlk75sbq5Dh2wxcY
> [2]
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/a43531f9-d34c-4806-97f0-7665befc7e95%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email_source=footer

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d3e4b4989f9989d42135d2106294e71e%40zonnet.nl.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/272321496.3596453.1562436694561%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: The origin of life has not been explained

2019-07-06 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

Scientifically, nobody has yet, pursued a chain, where people can create life 
out of base elements* (Ulam-Miller?), where is a telling point for me.  So in 
our inability we must either not be looking, or it may be impossible, or how to 
get life started is being misunderstood.
*Carbon Hydrogen Oxygen Nitrogen and maybe potassium, sodium, etc...  
Biologists need to get their act together, otherwise, they are peddling an 
incomplete understanding. Beyond this, I care more about Life Scientists 
ability to cure disease, than I am about creating life. Ever, the pragmatist, 
I. 


-Original Message-
From: Philip Thrift 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Sat, Jul 6, 2019 8:01 am
Subject: Re: The origin of life has not been explained



What does "social status" have to do with a program shown on a far-right 
channel?
I care about the truth of identifying the source of information.
Do you care about that truth at all?
@philipthrift


On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 6:39:19 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
So you care more about social status than truth ? Quite irrational, don't you 
think ?

On Saturday, 6 July 2019 14:37:30 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
Who cares?


-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cac2c26c-ea11-4c63-b47f-dcb5561ad5eb%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/748871788.3588312.1562436328270%40mail.yahoo.com.

Re: Observation versus assumption (was: anecdote of Moon landing)



On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 8:48:42 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
>  ... the "Löbian machine" idea can not help anyone understand anything.
>
>>
>>
"Löbian machines" (or "theorem provers") are a key technology at MIRI [ 
http://intelligence.org ]:

http://intelligence.org/files/lob-notes-IAFF.pdf
https://intelligence.org/files/TilingAgentsDraft.pdf
...


I believe in technology, not theology. :)

@philipthrift

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0cc4c471-5ce6-4e5e-808c-31d24e076f27%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The origin of life has not been explained

On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 4:48 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Science has a good explanation how to go from the simplest bacteria to
human beings. Science has also made a good start at explaining how to go
from simple chemicals to simple bacteria, but in that it still has a way to
go. Meanwhile the God theory has managed to explain precisely NOTHING, all
it does is kick the problem upstairs. It is the very nature of an
explanation to show how a simple thing can produce a complex thing, the God
theory does the reverse. If an explanation is more complicated than the
thing it's trying to explain then it is of no use to anyone.

John K Clark



John K Clark

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0mCpn%2BWY6mUe4%3D-T-kV_9meb%3DD%2BAydWvx4sNC7fs1PAg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Observation versus assumption (was: anecdote of Moon landing)

On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 12:19 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> *>>> Science guarantee that we cannot be certain that compuytaionalism is
>>> true,*
>>
>> >> It makes no difference if it's true or not,
>
>

> *> It makes the difference between surviving a clinical operation and
> dying.*
>

You're atoms are different from what they were a year ago, if you have
survived that brain transplant operation with your consciousness intact
(and only you know if it has) then you can conclude that atoms do NOT have
your name scratched on them so if you say yes to the doctor and your atoms
are replaced AGAIN your should survive AGAIN with your consciousness
remaining intact AGAIN. And all this is true regardless of if
computationalism is true or not.

By the way, computationalism says nothing about consciousness, it only says
that intelagent behavior can be explained by computations; and when you
look at the rapid increase in AI it is becoming more difficult to hold a
view contrary to computationalism every day.

> *Did you insist to copy the glial cells in your brain.*
>

To play it safe today I'd say yes, although as we learn more about glial
cells that might prove unnecessary.

> *we can also use the older motivation given by Plato and platonists. *
>

Bad idea. If a modern scientists takes almost anything Plato or any ancient
Greek philosopher said seriously then there is an excellent chance he will
end up making a fool of himself.

> *I have defined faith by* [...]
>

I already know how the word "faith" is defined in the English Language and
it's not worth my time to learn the definition in Brunospeak as you are the
only one that uses that language.

> > [blah blah] *that is in accordance with classical greek theology.*
>

Then it is almost certainly wrong.

> > *Indeed Platonism encourage the* [blah blah]
>

Who gives a damn what Plato or Platonism encourages!

 >> And I have absolutely no need to prove it to say yes to the doctor or
>> yes to being frozen. That's why I said yes.
>
>
> *> No problem with this.*
>

So we agree that I can't prove it and it would in no way effect my decision
to say yes to the doctor or yes to being frozen even if I could. So what
are we arguing about?

> >> When I Google "Löbian machine" nothing comes up except stuff written
>> by you. Even Löb didn't know what a Löbian machine was.
>
>
> *> Well then read the stuff I have written, and ask if you don’t
> understand. I have given many different definitions,*

I define "magic carpet" as a rug that can fly. Like you I give no hint as
to how to build such a thing but unlike you and your "Löbian machine" at
least from my description you can recognize a magic carpet for what it is
if you happen to see one. But neither you or I or Löb has any way of
telling if something is a "Löbian machine" or not.  Which means the "Löbian
machine" idea can not help anyone understand anything.

> >> Turing told us EXACTLY how to make a Turing Machine, but neither Löb
>> or you or anybody else told us even approximately how to make a Löbian
>> machine.
>
>

*> Now you know. *
>

*No I do not know!!* Turing explained in complete detail exactly how to
build one of his machines, but neither you or anybody else has ever
provided a hint as to how to make one of these things, you don't even tell
us how we can recognize a Löbian machine if we see one as you don't say
what the machine looks like or what it can do or but only what it "knows".
In contrast Turing told us that not all machines are Turing Machines and
taught us how to tell the difference. So it's not surprising that, at least
according to Google, nobody but you believes the  Löbian machine concept to
be useful and uses it.

*> But you are the one who seems to take Aristotelian theology for granted.*
>

Well, I certainly do not take "Aristotelian theology" for granted in the
English language meaning of that phrase, for example I don't think
everything is made of just 4 elements, earth, air, fire, and water. But
perhaps I do take
"Aristotelian theology" for granted in Brunospeak I really don't know. And
to be honest I really don't care.

* > Aristotelian is the belief in Matter, and in the irreducibility of
> matter from anything no material.*
>

I would say "material" is anything that obeys the laws of physics, I don't
know what else the word could mean. So if someday somebody finds that
everything that we consider material today can be reduced to superstrings
or loops of quantum gravity or whatever then that "whatever" must be
material and obey a newly discovered law of physics. I would also say that
"somebody" is certain to win a Nobel Prize.

> > *You are the one who claim sometimes to refute what I say by invoking
> your assumption that there is a PRIMARY physical reality,*
>

I claim that nobody in the history of the world has been able to calculate
2+2 without using matter that obeys the laws of physics and I further claim
that even matter can't make a calculation unless it is organized in the

Re: The origin of life has not been explained



What does "social status" have to do with a program shown on *a far-right 
channel*?

I care about the truth of identifying *the source* of information.

Do you care about that truth at all?

@philipthrift


On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 6:39:19 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>
> So you care more about social status than truth ? Quite irrational, don't 
> you think ?
>
> On Saturday, 6 July 2019 14:37:30 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>> Who cares?
>>
>>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cac2c26c-ea11-4c63-b47f-dcb5561ad5eb%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The origin of life has not been explained

2019-07-06 Thread 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List

So you care more about social status than truth ? Quite irrational, don't 
you think ?

On Saturday, 6 July 2019 14:37:30 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
> Who cares?
>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/0318d2e5-1c09-4048-ad6f-534305afe65d%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The origin of life has not been explained



On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 6:18:38 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>
> What does this has to do with what that guy is saying ?
>
> On Saturday, 6 July 2019 13:53:28 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> You know that this YouTube channel
>>
>>
Who cares?

But you should identify the source of what you post.

One can say something I can agree with, but if they say it on a far-right 
venue (for example), I will identify the "channel" they are speaking on.

It's called "full disclosure".

@philipthrift

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/16694f80-fab4-4295-b263-45d5df067ce0%40googlegroups.com.

Re: subjective experience



On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 1:42:20 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 6 Jul 2019, at 05:57, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, July 5, 2019 at 9:27:11 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 4 Jul 2019, at 10:57, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, July 4, 2019 at 3:31:27 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> > On 3 Jul 2019, at 19:54, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
>>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>  
>>
>>> > You may be able to access your subjective time, but does it provide a 
>>> measure...and if so what is it? 
>>>
>>>
>>  
>>
>>> We get three candidates for the logic of the measure one, given by the 
>>> logic of the intensional variant of G ([]p): 
>>>
>>> []p & p 
>>> []p & <>t 
>>> []p & <>t & p 
>>>
>>> With “[]” = Gödel’s beweisbar, and p is any  sigma_1 arithmetical 
>>> sentences (it models the Universal dovetailing). 
>>>
>>> If that logic verifies some technical condition (described by Von Neuman 
>>> in some papers), the logic should provides the entire probability calculus, 
>>> as it has to do if Mechanism is correct. 
>>>
>>> G and G* splits both []p & <>t and []p & <>t & p. So we get 5 logics, 
>>> but normally, only the starred logic should provides the measure, because 
>>> it depends on the true structure made by the 1p experiences, and not the 
>>> experienced experiences. Our future depends non locally of all our existing 
>>> “preparation” or “reconstitution” that exists in the (sigma_1) arithmetic 
>>>  (the universal dovetailer). 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bruno 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> If that above is a correct *experientiality logic*, then what would be a 
>> 'machine' -- defined in terms of physics (or chemistry or biology) -- to 
>> execute it?
>>
>> We know one 'machine' exists: our brain. But what machine is that?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> That’s a very good question, but not an easy one, especially if you are 
>> not familiar with the “universal dovetailer argument” and our 
>> self-multiplication in arithmetic. 
>>
>> The brain exist phenomenologically, and it is not a machine, even if it 
>> is something which supports computation. In fact it is the same for a 
>> computer.
>>
>> You could say that a brain or a computer is a digital machine (supporting 
>> our computation), but that it is itself supported by an infinity of 
>> computations. Intuitively (accepting classical quantum physics momentarily) 
>> a piece of matter is a map of all the realities you will access if you 
>> attempt to figure out some aspect of those sub-level computations. You can 
>> imagine that there is one computation for each possible position (and 
>> momentum) of each electron in that piece of matter, and the electron itself 
>> is a complicated invariant of some possible field. But the multiplication 
>> can be triggered by the observation, by some alien, even far away, of its 
>> own piece of matter. Such a multiplication is contaminated by the alien to 
>> you, at the speed of light (or below) assuming again the physics of today 
>> (which we seem to recover until now).
>>
>> It is certainly hard to imagine: a brain our a physical computer is made 
>> up of the histories we can share, and which are supported by the infinitely 
>> many computations (which are run in Arithmetic) with more details than we 
>> need to have our computational state. 
>> An image would be that a piece of matter is made of those computations, 
>> but that is still a misleading metaphor, as matter is not something made of 
>> anything, but is more like a qualia (a first person notion), which we can 
>> share among locally independent universal machine.
>>
>> I can argue, that both intuitively (with some many-world account of QM) 
>> and formally (using the self-reference logics and the quantum logical 
>> formalism) that nature confirms this (with some degree), but that will not 
>> help, QM itself does not admit simple interpretation, and there is no 
>> unanimity of how to interpret it. Mechanism makes this both more simple 
>> (the many computations are easy to study), and more complex, because the 
>> internal views are based on incompleteness which is rather 
>> counter-intuitive too.
>>
>> It is exactly what I am searching: what is matter when we understand that 
>> the physical reality is more like an infinity of computer simulation 
>> interfering statistically? The math, a bit like with the current physical 
>> theories, can only give epistemic observable and predictions rules, and 
>> that is how we can test mechanism experimentally. Matter conceived as 
>> something made of tiny particles is a concept that we need to abandon: they 
>> are abstract feature introduce by ourself when we look at things, but with 
>> a very general notion of ourself (all universal machines in arithmetic). 
>> The math suggest that the “bottom” of the physical reality is a highly 
>> symmetrical structure which is highly not symmetrical from the perspective 
>> of the average universal number in

Re: The origin of life has not been explained

2019-07-06 Thread 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List

What does this has to do with what that guy is saying ?

On Saturday, 6 July 2019 13:53:28 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> You know that this YouTube channel
>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9ad11e7e-acfd-4bad-a393-c317a9fd09ce%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The origin of life has not been explained