https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9QYtbjzjAw&feature=youtu.be
Mere philosophy ;-) Like the monkeys banking on the typewriters in the British Museum, accidentally creating the Encyclopedia Britannica ;-)) Which is also proof that humans, not even atheists, are sentient.
Atoms and molecules attract each other and produce an almost infinite variety of chemical substances. It's part of the chaos that exists in the universe. When things combine because they have a natural affinity to do so, they simply do so. And they do this whether the universe is chaotic or not. There is so much of this natural affinity creating so many chemical substances among the existing chaos, that it seems random, but it's not really random, because of the natural affinity that exists. It happens because it's going to happen.
When simple things combine into new more complex things that go on to combine and make even more complex things, the results can be unpredictable, and that makes it seem like a pattern exists in the chaos. Of course, none of this is directed, predicted, or predetermined. If that's the definition of "random" then I'm OK with that.
I suppose, I'm missing the point of the short video, but it seems like that speaker was suggesting that scientists might be looking for a pattern to randomness, which would be absurd. Randomness literally means "without a pattern." This is not to say that life is inevitable any more or less than carbon dioxide is inevitable. It's just one of the trillions of outcomes of the affinities of complex combinations of elements.
We act as if we are surprised because life exists, but that surprise is just an emotion that arises from our confusion. Things happen whether we are surprised, disturbed, elated, or surprised again. No reason to be surprised, really.
Our oceans were a wild chemical soup back in the early hundred-millions of Earth's history. It would have been surprising if life didn't appear.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 11, 2016, 08:30:04 AM
Our oceans were a wild chemical soup back in the early hundred-millions of Earth's history. It would have been surprising if life didn't appear.
No, that wouldn't have surprised me either.
On the other hand, some responses are mere regurgitation of Democritus' ancient atomic theory. When in fact, atoms can be subdivided, contrary to the etymology of the word. The most recent version is attempts at space/time being in little Plank chunks ... because the paradox of motion of Zeno of Elea (back in ancient Greek days also) has to be refuted.
Space and time interact, and mass and energy interact ... all ideas that existed way back when. The continuation of the idea of Thales, the earliest physicist ... that everything is made up of something, and what is that something? Thales said water. I think it was ouzo ;-)
Everything is mildew.
chemicals
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on August 12, 2016, 08:41:59 PM
chemicals
"I went to the Chemical/Corn Exchange Bank and traded a bushel of corn for a beaker of chemicals." (Firesign Theater for you unhip people.)
Yeah, I always wondered what Chemical Bank did as a business.
The complexity of the universe just baffles me at times. All the chemical and physical changes eventually led to one of the most complicated machines ever, the brain. It is quite beautiful if you think about.
Quote from: DeltaEpsilon on August 27, 2016, 08:47:19 PM
The complexity of the universe just baffles me at times. All the chemical and physical changes eventually led to one of the most complicated machines ever, the brain. It is quite beautiful if you think about.
It is only mysterious, if you believe in epiphenomenalism, and other pseudo science. Pseudo science can be useful, just not truthful. Pythagoreanism is a pseudo science, yet use of math in science and technology is very powerful, in spite of Pythagoras being an early Jim Jones.
Complexity isn't for people. We are apes ... and keep your hands off my banana ;-0
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 13, 2016, 09:09:36 AM
"I went to the Chemical/Corn Exchange Bank and traded a bushel of corn for a beaker of chemicals." (Firesign Theater for you unhip people.)
You get a like just for referencing Firesign Theater -- been a fan since the early 70s. :)
Now I keep all of my chemicals at the Chemical Bank.
Quote from: DeltaEpsilon on August 27, 2016, 08:47:19 PM
The complexity of the universe just baffles me at times. All the chemical and physical changes eventually led to one of the most complicated machines ever, the brain. It is quite beautiful if you think about.
I think the same thing about eyes. The evolution of eyes just floors me.
Quote from: Mermaid on August 28, 2016, 09:28:33 AM
I think the same thing about eyes. The evolution of eyes just floors me.
I'm more fascinated by the different implementations of the eye that we see -- the eye we have, the compound eye of the house fly, the pinhole eye of the nautilus, the light-sensitive patches of planaria, and all points in between. It certainly indicates the blind (so to speak) forces of evolution far more than it does a single creation -- why re-create the wheel ten times, after all?
Teeth. The symmetry and variety. Incisors for cutting, and molars for chewing. And in conjunction with the oh-so-versatile tongue. If it evolved overnight, I would think there must be a designer. But given a trillion days, or so, it doesn't seem necessary.
half an eye is better than no eye.
Basically some light-receptive cells connected to a neural network is the start-shot to the evolution of eyes.
We'll never fully grasp the amount of time needed for all this.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 29, 2016, 07:41:48 AM
We'll never fully grasp the amount of time needed for all this.
Four billion really isn't that big a number. It's the number of bytes on the chip in my camera right now. At a year a byte, half a billion years is a compressed video, roughly, and the whole of Earth's history from its formation to now is around about a standard DVD. There are ways to put it in terms that are within reach. We'll probably never understand the
experience of that kind of time, but we can find ways to grasp it intellectually.
Quote from: trdsf on August 28, 2016, 09:33:27 PM
I'm more fascinated by the different implementations of the eye that we see -- the eye we have, the compound eye of the house fly, the pinhole eye of the nautilus, the light-sensitive patches of planaria, and all points in between. It certainly indicates the blind (so to speak) forces of evolution far more than it does a single creation -- why re-create the wheel ten times, after all?
Octopus eyes are similar to the human, as are the baby blues of the scallop. That should make posters clam up, unless they are invertebrates ;-)
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 29, 2016, 07:41:48 AM
We'll never fully grasp the amount of time needed for all this.
The universe is very inefficient. A creator is definitely a slacker.
Quote from: trdsf on August 29, 2016, 06:23:38 PM
Four billion really isn't that big a number. It's the number of bytes on the chip in my camera right now. At a year a byte, half a billion years is a compressed video, roughly, and the whole of Earth's history from its formation to now is around about a standard DVD. There are ways to put it in terms that are within reach. We'll probably never understand the experience of that kind of time, but we can find ways to grasp it intellectually.
That's what I mean. We have to tiny it before we get a grip on it. Lay out four billion pennies, all face up. Then you have an idea about four billion. What you propose is to ignore the "billion" because it's out of our grasp.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 31, 2016, 09:40:23 AM
That's what I mean. We have to tiny it before we get a grip on it. Lay out four billion pennies, all face up. Then you have an idea about four billion. What you propose is to ignore the "billion" because it's out of our grasp.
It's partly a matter of perspective, which even in my life time has varied. When I was barely in school, I had a friend who was two years older. He informed me he could count to a hundred. I was dumbfounded, so he started to show me. Somewhere in the demonstration, we both got bored and he quit. When I first heard about them, millionaires were remarkable, and the power of the wealth was astounding. Today, some of the kids I went to school with are millionaires, but it's not so impressive anymore. In fact, the millionaires I know, I tend to consider in the upper middle class. We no longer look at millionaires with a sense of awe. It takes a billionaire to do that these days. Of course a million or a billion things are still a lot, even though one dwarfs the other. Actually, both numbers are rather unfathomable. You can blow a couple of million dollars on a classy sailboat, but it's still a lot of dollars. Try saving a million dollars. It's impossible for most people.
The universe seems to be an infinite cellular automaton. Very simple rules acting on a very large number of fundamental particles is all it takes to generate - us. That just amazes me more the more I think about it.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 31, 2016, 05:38:28 PM
The universe seems to be an infinite cellular automaton. Very simple rules acting on a very large number of fundamental particles is all it takes to generate - us. That just amazes me more the more I think about it.
I hate use what has been an overused to the point of becoming a trite expression, but it is AWESOME. Richard Dawkins, in response to the Christian enthusiasm for the Bible, once said in a video, "I wish people would pay more attention to science, because science also has an interesting story to tell." Although, I think personally that his comment understates the point.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 31, 2016, 09:40:23 AM
That's what I mean. We have to tiny it before we get a grip on it. Lay out four billion pennies, all face up. Then you have an idea about four billion. What you propose is to ignore the "billion" because it's out of our grasp.
The odds of all 4 billion pennies landing face up on fair tosses ... is a much bigger number. Two to the power of 4 billion.
Quote from: Unbeliever on August 31, 2016, 05:38:28 PM
The universe seems to be an infinite cellular automaton. Very simple rules acting on a very large number of fundamental particles is all it takes to generate - us. That just amazes me more the more I think about it.
Thank you Stephen Wolfram.
Quote from: SGOS on August 31, 2016, 10:35:09 AM
It's partly a matter of perspective, which even in my life time has varied. When I was barely in school, I had a friend who was two years older. He informed me he could count to a hundred. I was dumbfounded, so he started to show me. Somewhere in the demonstration, we both got bored and he quit. When I first heard about them, millionaires were remarkable, and the power of the wealth was astounding. Today, some of the kids I went to school with are millionaires, but it's not so impressive anymore. In fact, the millionaires I know, I tend to consider in the upper middle class. We no longer look at millionaires with a sense of awe. It takes a billionaire to do that these days. Of course a million or a billion things are still a lot, even though one dwarfs the other. Actually, both numbers are rather unfathomable. You can blow a couple of million dollars on a classy sailboat, but it's still a lot of dollars. Try saving a million dollars. It's impossible for most people.
That is inflation for you. In Zimbabwe ... being a trillionaire is nothing.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 31, 2016, 09:40:23 AM
That's what I mean. We have to tiny it before we get a grip on it. Lay out four billion pennies, all face up. Then you have an idea about four billion. What you propose is to ignore the "billion" because it's out of our grasp.
Four gigabytes is still four billion. I remember when we couldn't imagine how to fill a 25 megabyte drive. I assert that I have an idea about four billion; I have not ignored it, and you have no basis on which to suggest I don't. Just because you can't doesn't mean I can't.
Quote from: trdsf on August 31, 2016, 07:57:18 PM
Four gigabytes is still four billion. I remember when we couldn't imagine how to fill a 25 megabyte drive.
One of my first computers was an Apple II GS. It came with a standard 3.5 inch disk drive. I can't remember how many megabytes a 3.5" disk held, but I wanted to upgrade. I found a hard drive which could be added inside the computer housing. It was an aftermarket thing made by an outfit called Applied Engineering if I remember correctly. It held a whopping 10 Megabytes, room enough for all the programs I had written, along with all the accompanying data files, with room to spare, but in retrospect the most astounding thing about it was the cost. Six hundred dollars, and I bought it without much deliberation. It served me well for several years. Never had to reach for another floppy disk in my boxes of floppies. When it was time to get rid of it, the Internet was already going strong. I offered it to the local Christian school, which operated on a shoestring. I had a friend who taught there, and I felt quite magnanimous as an atheist giving such a precious resource to a Christian school. But they didn't want it, so I put it in a dumpster, which was actually kind of painful for me, because I had enjoyed it for so many years.
Quote from: Baruch on August 31, 2016, 06:17:59 PM
The odds of all 4 billion pennies landing face up on fair tosses ... is a much bigger number. Two to the power of 4 billion.
I said nothing about a toss. The point of "face up" was that each penny has to be examined and some of them manipulated to achieve "all face up". That extends the amount of time and work to be done, until you build a machine to do that, which defeats the point of the exercise in understand "four billion".