Constructing a Theory of Life

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.

Georgina, thanks for pointing out that obscure 'most recent first' setting, it does help... a little...

Jim

Re Georgina Woodward's claims that "It is a physical process not a rule "running the show'.", and that "Rules and laws tell us how, the way in which, something is happening. They are not telling it to happen" [1]:

Logic is about valid reasoning and deductions based on pre-existing propositions and/or rules. Without pre-existing propositions and/or rules, nothing can be deduced.

And without the assumption that the universe has an actual logical basis (i.e. actual rule-relationships exist), then no logical deductions about the universe can be made, by physicists or anybody else. [2]

Denying that the universe is based on actual rule-relationships, then Georgina has no basis for logical deductions about the universe.

Denying that the universe is based on actual rule-relationships, Georgina is free to make claims that have no logical basis.

1. Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 17, 2018 @ 21:49 GMT , Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 18, 2018 @ 02:14 GMT .

2. The source of the rule-relationships is a different issue.

Re Georgina Woodward's claims of "emergence":

Physical interactions in the universe always occur in the context of their environments. While the same fundamental variables (like energy, momentum, relative position, time) and the same fundamental law of nature relationships/rules are always there, a different environmental situation is representable as a different set of numbers for the variables in the equations/rules.

So the claim of "emergence" caused by an environmental situation is the claim that a set of numbers causes the "emergence" of something new. In a logical, rule-based system, this is clearly preposterous.

Emergentists always seem to be reluctant to, or unable to, specify exactly what it is that is supposed to emerge.

But in a logical, rule-based system you've got 2 choices: 1. (what we would represent as) a new number assignment (i.e. a new initial-value rule); and 2. (what we would represent as) a new rule, where a new rule is a new category of information (i.e. a new variable). Rules can be represented as equations, algorithms or number assignments.

In a logical rule-based system, the rules do not emerge as an output from the system: the rules are input to the system.

The rules are the basis for the universe-system's logical functioning. But where the rules come from, the source of the rules, is a different issue.

Dear Joe Fisher,

Thomas Paine's book is highly outdated and cannot contribute anything to enlighten the historical truth about the genesis of the holy scriptures and their truthful contents. Paine's book was published in 1807, years before Robert Anderson published his results concerning the prophecy of Daniel 9 ff. in 1888. Nontheless I think Paine was true about the clerical system of the roman-catholic curch, since the latter's hierarchies were built according to the hierarchies of the roman empire.

Since then, biblical archeology has advanced rapidly, early copies of complete Jesaja and other parts of the holy scriptures were found in Qumran and could be dated accurately. The abrahamitian beliefs and also the christian beliefs are about a creator of all of nature. Nature itself is the creation of God, not God itself. See for example the Gospel of John, Chapter 1, 1-12 were it has been made clear that Christ has been the creator behind all of nature as we know it. All of this has nothing to do with your musings about some "non-surface light" (until you accept that your "non-surface light" is a spiritual light, it is Christ, the light of the world).

Re "We really aren't 'on the same wavelength'" [1]:

I realised when listening to John Marsden on Q&A [2] on TV tonight that Georgina is a "concrete thinker" and I'm more of an "abstract thinker", when it comes to these issues. This explains everything.

1. Georgina Woodward replied on Aug. 18, 2018 @ 02:14 GMT

2. http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/

Hi Georgina,

i understand what you intend. But the case is far more complicated. Jesus couldn't choose to be born in Bethlehem. He couldn't choose to be nailed on the cross (since the Jews could have chosen not Barrabas, but Jesus as the victim), he couldn't choose that the roman soldiers put the lancet into his body, that they gambled for his clothes and many many more facts.

The writings of the gospels are made by direct eye-witnesses. These witnesses couldn't afford to lie, since at the time they wrote their gospels, many other eye-witnesses were still alive. If they had lied concerning the prophesies, christianity wouldn't have had such a huge success, but would have drowned very fast into unknown history. By the way, crucifiction wasn't invented yet by the romans when the prophecy of a messiah that should be nailed was written down cneturies before.

Best wishes,

Stefan

Hi Stefan,

it was a planned pregnancy. Birth families home town of Bethlehem could have been a selection criterion. As to fulfill the prophesy of resurrection the Crucifixion had to happen maybe Jesus' supporters were quiet or deliberately less vocal than they would have been if they really wanted him released. Some Roman soldiers were already 'converted'. Maybe the necessary spearing was deliberately non lethal. Perhaps with some theatrics to make it appear a worse injury than it was. Jesus was also taken down early from the cross. Perhaps the Roman soldiers didn't want him dead. Even Pontius Pilate said he found no fault in him. Just a few ideas. Faith is what it is. It provides a certainty that science can't. Science as I see it is about inquiry, including what if things are not as they seem?

Hi Georgina,

no, faith is not about certainty, it is about trusting from within the heart.

Your scenarios are a little bit conspiracy-like. You have to take into account that in the times of Jesus, the written word was the only possibility to conserve cultural contents. Especially religious contents were such holy that the translaters and copy-men got castigated when they wrote a single incorrect sign down. There was a whole class of such men that were only consumed by copying these texts and were explicitely educated for this holy service.

Since the writers of the gospels were Jews too, they couldn't allow themselves to lie about anything they write. Even if they did, every reader of their "lies" must have laughed out loud and the gospels couldn't spread like they did. Writing for example that Jesus healed many people whereas your conspiracy-theory suggests that he didn't healed a single person makes no sense in the times after Jesus died. Remember that he walked through half of Palestine more than once within 3 years. Therefore, according to your theory, there must have been many eye-witnesses, but none of them saw an actual healing. According to your theory, these "healings" must have been just rumours and none of the people that met Jesus have ever seen a single healing from him. Worse: even his disciples never saw a single healing done by him.

Take for example the gospel of Luke. He writes in chapter 1, verse 3 that from the beginning he investigated everything about the "case". It may be that he really investigated and interviewed all the people and according to the results, he wrote down his gospel with good conscience. The problem here is that everything he researched must have been based on lies from eye-witnesses (still living) or other people. For this scenario we have to assume that every man and woman lied to him in respect to the important things that could qualify Jesus as the real Messiah. Or alternatively, that every man and woman he spoke with didn't really know what they are talking about (because they only heard that Jesus did this and that but never saw it directly). Even with some good will I would estimate such a scenario as very unlikely. It would require that all these people have fooled each other. Remember that the majority of the Jews didn't accept Jesus as the coming Messiah. The Jews weren't idiots or fools. If Jesus didn't heal anybody in the temple, the Pharisee would have soon spread the word that Jesus never healed anyone in their temple. Now, according to your theory, this may have been historically the case. But then, the gospels simply lie about these facts and if not the gospels lie about them, the disciples of Jesus must have fooled everybody who trusted them and their words.

Let's go to some other aspects of the gospels. Jesus said that the temple will be destroyed. 70 A.D. the temple was destroyed by the romans. They surrounded Jerusalem and crucified many people on the hills. The gospels said that the believers should be aware that this would come to pass and they should flew to the mountains. Thanks to God, in about I think 67 or 68 A.D. the sourroundings of Jerusalem was paused because Nero died and the man who was in charge for the surroundings wanted to be the next Emperor of the roman Empire. This gave the believers the time to go out of this city.

The next prophecy says that the Jews once will return to their homeland in the endtimes after having been spread all over the earth having no homeland after the destruction of the temple. Also this prophecy has been fullfilled. Since 1890, many Jews went back to their homeland (from Russia) and tried to recultivate their land. Even more: After two world-wars that tried to efface the Jewish race from the earth, these Jews officially became back a part of their homeland. Since at that time the land was highly desolate and infested with malaria, they had much to do to reagricultivate it to live from it. As you know, they turned the land into a kind of Garden Eden by planting Millions of trees and plants. Also this was prophecied in the old testament.

If you take together all the fullfilled prophecies and make a calculation about the probability for them to all occur according to the scriptures, you will find that the probability for that is much to small to ever occur as a humanly fabricated conspiracy. Or put it another way: there must be something very strong that leads humanity to execute such a mindblowing conspiracy. And I believe that this "something" is the reliable word of God, that the healings by Jesus took place and that denying them is a conspiracy of human pride. We think to know everything about nature. Therefore we exclude miracles and godly intervention. But do we really know everything about nature - or do we only believe that we know everything? And according to which sources do we believe that we know everything about nature? Isn't it true that these sources are not scientifical, but personal and philosophical opinions about the things we already found out about nature (laws of nature etc.)? Who says that what we already found out must be all there is? Couldn't it be that the spreading of the belief that the laws of nature must be considered as the modern version of a universal God is a similar conspiracy as you suggest for the case of Jesus, a conspiracy based on rumours and personal philosophical beliefs, but not on provable facts?

Hi Stefan, I haven't presented a conspiracy theory about Jesus but just presented a few ideas in response to our own. You wrote ".. your conspiracy-theory suggests that he didn't healed a single person makes no sense in the times after Jesus died." I didn't say anything about Jesus healing people or not healing them. I think he probably did help people as a a healer.You wrote "Who says that what we already found out must be all there is?" Is anyone saying that? I think I will leave our conversation here. I Haven't meant to cause offence.

Stefan,

Slaveholding societies break up even family units and scatter them to the far reaches to prevent cultural cohesion necessary for revolt. So how could Mosses have gathered the great mass of people from twelve whole tribes to the center of the most productive area of the Egyptian Empire to foment an escape in the first place? As Moses successor, David forged the world's first known mobile, self sustaining military expeditionary force and led a genocidal campaign leaving massive amounts of archaeological and anthropological evidence in its wake. He is studied by War Colleges in every nation large enough to have one. He was a ruthless, despotic ruler who broke every one of the Ten Commandments, murdering a man to take his wife even. Exodus is the word of David, a self serving can-do rationalization to provide a narrative as the raison d'etre of cultural survival. And Exodus is one of many pantheologically. Myth begets prophesy, blind faith perpetuates it.

Hi Georgina,

i am not offended (why do you think so?). Sure didn't you say anything about Jesus healing people or not healing them. And i never made the claim that you did. My remarks on that issue are (at least for me) nonetheless valid and worth writing them down and publish them, since many people have similar ideas as yours and i think it's worth pointing out that such ideas are inconsistent when one takes into account facts that many people do not know due to lack of information.

As far as you presented your ideas, they are inconsistent for me, so i have to write why. Hope you are not offended by that. It would have been interesting to know whether or not you believe that Jesus healed a man with a withered hand the way the gospel tells. "Who says that what we already found out must be all there is?". There are many people alone here at fqxi that in fact say such a thing. Just read the many essays once again. Sure you didn't say this sentence in our conversation, but i never made the claim that you did. It is generally adressed to those who think that way.

Dear Anonymus,

your comment makes an extended reply necessary. But before dipping into moral arguments for musings that Exodus and the like are just myths, one has to calculate the historical dates of these events with the help of the numbers given in the bible. Since i want to argue scientifically and not emotionally in the first place, this is necessary. Only after such an investigation into the scientific evidence it makes sense to me to dip into moral or anthropological arguments.

Salomo's temple in Jerusalem was destroyed 586 B.C. by the Babylonians. About the life of Nebukadnezar we own many cuneiform writings with observations of 5 planets and the moon. There are about 30 informations about these planet constellations. With this we can date the time of Nebukadnezar absolutely. The result is the 19. year of Nebukadnezar (see 2 Kings, Chapter 25, 8).

Take the date of 586 B.C. as absolute historical date for the destruction of Salomo's temple. And now calculate back with the numbers contained within the bible. Eventually you now have to read some bible-texts, because we first need some numbers from first and second chronicles as well as first and second book of Kings. Add all the numbers for the kings after Salomo and you end up with 390 years. These 390 years are additionally mentioned in Hesekiel 4,4. So far we derive with that at the division of the 12 tribes after Salomo's death at 976 B.C. (586 + 390).

Then you have to read Acts 13, 21. Saul was king for 40 years. Then 2. Kings 2, 11, David was king for 40 years. Then read 2. chronicles 9, 30 where it is stated that Salomo was king for 40 years. The result is 120 years, the monarchy of Israel where these kings ruled over all 12 tribes.

Now we are in the year 1096 B.C., the year 1 of Saul. Before Saul, Israel was reigned by the Judges (book of Judges). This time period lasted about 450 years (see Acts 13, 18-20). We now arrive at 1546 B.C. and go further back with the capture of Kanaan which lasted 6 years (4. Moses, 9 and Joshua 14). With this and the walk in the desert (40 years) we arrive at 1592 B.C. (1546 + 6 + 40). And finally you have to take the 300 years in the book of Judges 11, 26 (from Jair till the last year of the desert walk) then you can derive the X for the capture of Kanaan forward until the start of the times of the Judges (14 years).

We now arrive at 1606 B.C. for the Exodus from Egypt ((1546 + 6 + 14 + 40) - much earlier than for example Israel Finkelstein and others claim. Let's look at the difference:

1606 (biblical cronology) - 1230 (Finkelstein and others) = 376 years

For professional archeologist and ägyptologists, these 376 years of difference may be very familiar to them. It was the British ägyptologist David Rohl who proposed in his book "A test of time" that one has to push the date for the Exodus some 380 years backwards, because for him, most of the cornerstone dates of ägyptology aren't tenable anymore. Of course, people like Finkelstein disagree and I think Finkelstein as well as Rohl are right: One hasn't to push the date for the Exodus backwards arbitrarily, one only has to properly read the bible. Maybe both of them haven't done that, at least Finkelstein claims that what the bible states are no more than fairy tales. It is no wonder that he concludes that at 1230 B.C. there was no such city as Jericho. Because Jericho was destroyed at about 1566 B.C. and until then never rebuilt again properly with a city wall (read this at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho if you like).

Dear Anonymous and Stefan,

The Periodic Table am a work of fiction. Invisible finite atoms have never existed. The English translation of the Bible am fiction. No invisible empty void has ever preceded one unified VISIBLE infinite surface ETERNALLY occurring in one infinite dimension that am always mostly illuminated by finite non-surface light.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Joe, you only provide an explanation for appearance. Appearance can not provide an explanation for how things happen, such as chemistry (i.e. the way in which it is enabled, to happen as it does). The theory of atomic elements and their characteristic properties goes a long way in explaining chemistry. I think the value of an idea is enhanced if it has explanatory power.