Constructing a Theory of Life

I think the definition of existence that is used will either allow or disallow immaterial relation to be included. I would exclude them, reserving physical existence for substantial things and their relations. Brain activity in a material brain can easily be considered as something physical happening. A diagram on paper is a material representation, also something physical. But the immaterial concept without concurrent means of being known, through thought or visualization can be true/correct while not having a physical existence of itself -I think : )

In quantum events, energy is not always conserved: i.e. the numbers, for variables like energy, don't add up. In other words, in quantum events, new information [1] is added to the universe-system.

The interactions of a cyclone with trees, buildings and people can be understood in terms of lower-level, law of nature information interactions, where no new information has been added to the universe-system.

But the interactions of particles, atoms, molecules, and living things, have to be understood in terms of at least some new information having been added to the universe-system.

"Constructing a Theory of Life" is about constructing a theory of where this new information is coming from:

A) Does new information just emerge for no logical [2] reason (like Georgina, and other illogical people, claim); OR

B) Do certain forms of matter themselves create this new information?

I think it is becoming clear that matter itself is not the numb, dumb nothingness it has always been assumed to be.

................

1. Information in the universe, i.e. what the universe knows about, is representable as equations, algorithms, and number assignments.

2. Logic: "Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity", https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/logic

Lorraine, I have not claimed that new information just emerges for no logical reason. Putting words into other people's mouths and insults add nothing of value to your argument. They don't belong in a well reasoned discussion about physics.

Concerning the big questions, in the end, we know NOTHING. Except perhaps that Joe Fisher's dictum of "reality isn't a theory" must somewhat be true.

I stick to Stewart Cowan's comment and opinion that holy scripture is relevant for explaining the big questions. The bible is a prophetic book and many of its prophecies have been already fullfilled in the past. One has to carfully study them and there are good books out there that list these fullfilled prophecies together with biblical archeology (the findings of bible scriptures that can be accurately dated). Even the exact day Jesus rode on the donkey into Jerusalem (10. Nisan 32 AD) was prophecied in the old testament. Many people do not know these things due to a lack of personal serious investigations. Nonetheless these investigations could have huge merrits for one's understanding of the big how's and why's.

Georgina,

yes you have in effect "claimed that new information just emerges for no logical reason".

Logic is "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity" (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/logic).

Dear Lorraine Ford and Georgina Woodward,

Not a single invisible finite "quantum event" has ever taken place. Please accept the fact that NATURE devised the only VISIBLE structure of the UNIVERSE allowable. There has only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring ETERNALLY in one infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light. All supposedly finite information can only be written by folk who have a surface and publish their finite written rubbish on a surface that can only be read by other people who have a surface. All other insects, fish, animals, birds and bacteria have surfaces and deal with reality much more effectively than stupid men do, because they are not deceived by supposedly finite SCIENTIFIC codswallop information.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Dear Stefan Weckbach,

The biggest mistake orthodox Jews ever made was allowing English scholars in the early 17th century to translate their rabbinical writing into the supposedly definitive English language. The English scholars that did the translation published the greatest book of fiction ever written. Please read Thomas Paine's fine pamphlet, The Age of Reason for the full details.

Reality am not a theory am not "close" to being the truth. Please accept the fact that NATURE devised the only VISIBLE structure of the UNIVERSE allowable. There has only ever been one unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring ETERNALLY in one infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Logic is about valid reasoning. Logic is about what can be deduced from existing propositions and rules.

Logic does not create these propositions or rules: no propositions or rules "emerge" from logic. The source of the propositions and rules is outside the scope of logic.

And so in our universe-system, the source of the rules [1] cannot be logically deduced.

What can be deduced, is whether an outcome is a logical consequence of existing rules, or whether the outcome is due to a new rule [1] having been "input" to the universe-system. Some outcomes of quantum events can only be seen as a new rule (e.g. a new number assigned to an existing variable) having been "input" to the universe-system.

Logic does not create the rules. In our universe, the only candidate that could create and know about these rules, is matter itself: particles, atoms, molecules and living things. It is reasonable to conclude that matter is not the numb, dumb nothingness it has always been assumed to be.

............

1. Where rules can be represented as equations, algorithms and/or number assignments.

Lorraine,

your "yes you have in effect "claimed..." is not the same as it having been claimed. You were presenting your own low opinion on what has been written as if it was the other's actual statement/claim.

Dear Joe,

I 100% agree that nature, including "insects, fish, animals, birds and bacteria", literally devised everything we see.

Best wishes,

Lorraine

Previous post was from me.

A correctly folded enzyme has catalytic function whereas the unfolded or mis-folded or much deformed one does not. Rules pertaining to catalytic function apply to the correctly folded enzyme; such as temperature sensitivity affecting rate of catalysis, because of the effect of heat on its form. The rule does not apply the un-foldedd sequence because it does not work as a catalyst; Nor does it apply to the parts alone. This is very different from considering different scales within circulating air, or scales of moving air. There is a logical reason for the difference which is difference in shape/organisation not just scale. Some arrangements have shape and or topology that have functions because of that shape and or topology. Physics and chemistry that applies to the whole form does not necessarily apply to the constituents. The wing was another example.

No Georgina,

Nothing escapes physics. There is no scale in the universe in which physics does not apply. Underlying every shape, and at every scale, in whole or in part, it's the physics that is doing it: it's the rules (represented by equations, algorithms and number assignments) that determine the outcome numbers, including shapes of enzymes. The only question is whether any new information/rules have been input to the universe, or whether existing rules suffice to explain outcomes.

Just like your erroneous concept of an "image reality", your concept of a "shape" is erroneous. There is no such fundamental-level information in the universe as "shape". Both "shapes", and the "image" of our surrounding reality that we subjectively experience, are higher-level information that require the logical analysis and collation of lower-level information, via the equivalent of algorithmic rules. Then you have to ask where the rules came from.

This forum, in terms of web presentation, is pretty bad. After a few posts it becomes very difficult to find the new ones and I usually give up. It doesn't help that many posts are repetitious to the point of obsession.

There'd be a lot more discussion here, at a higher level, if the forum software was replaced with something more up-to-date.

Lorraine, I have not argued that 'shape' is fundamental level information. I have argued that it is important for emergence of some functions. Re. your and other's denial of emergence. The shape of the enzyme is a product of the process of folding the protein sequence. (And 'image reality' is a product; of an organism's sensory system and CNS, or of a device, or sensitive material. Irrelevant to this discussion)) I don't see that an algorithmic rule is needed for the protein to fold, when the energy for movement is provided by interactions with other molecules in the environment. And the environmental conditions surrounding the protein are affected by the topology and charges on the protein, enabling sites that must bind or align to do so when the protein is moved in such a way as they come in proximity. It is a physical process not a rule "running the show'.

Jim, if "most recent first" is selected (in the left hand column), the most recent will appear at the top. Each time a new post is added to a discussion that isn't at the top, the posts are rearranged so the most recent is at the top. It is easier than having the posts in chronological order, the other option, I find. If the discussion you are looking for is not at the top of the page it is just a matter of scrolling down through the discussions until it is found. If nothing new has been added for a while and other discussions are happening it will appear lower down the page. (Annoyingly the amount of spam does mean that sometimes they are the only posts visible in the left hand list of recent posts.As the post itself disappears while awaiting moderation but not its listing in that column.) Hoping that is helpful as intended.

Georgina,

All your verbiage, describing what you think is going on, is totally irrelevant.

E.g. your verbiage about "environmental conditions" and "topology" is totally irrelevant and redundant because lawful physical interactions in the universe ALWAYS occur in the context of environments. And "topology" is just a higher-level description of a lower-level-rule-based environment.

EITHER an enzyme is like a cyclone (where nothing genuinely new emerges except the word-labels human beings give to situations), OR genuine new information has somehow been input to the situation.

And all your convoluted verbiage is in effect saying that an enzyme is like a cyclone.

By the way, I like the absurd way that you deny the existence of the laws of physics: "It is a physical process not a rule "running the show'".

Lorraine, I have not denied there are laws of physics. Nor am I putting the cart before the horse. Rules and laws tell us how, the way in which, something is happening. They are not telling it to happen; In my opinion.

I will end my discussion with you here, since you consider what I have to say as irrelevant verbiage. Your corruption of what I have actually said is annoying as is your rudeness. We really aren't 'on the same wavelength', unfortunately.

Georgina,

Face the facts:

A different environment is just (representable as) a different set of numbers for the same fundamental variables (like energy, momentum, relative position, time) and the same fundamental law of nature relationships.

In other words, the laws of nature can handle all different environments: its just a matter of different numbers in the same mathematical relationships.

There are no "special environments" in the universe-system, there are only different numbers. Unless, you add new information (representable as equations, algorithms, and/or number assignments) to the system.

In any case, all particle, atomic and molecular information interactions are quantum events, so there is nothing simple and easily explained going on. Energy is not always conserved within these events i.e. new information is definitely added to the universe within these events.