Could this scientist’s new theory disprove God?

A NEW theory could answer the question of how life began – and throw out the need for God.

A writer on the website of atheist Richard Dawkins’ foundation says that the theory has put God “on the ropes” and has “terrified” Christians.

It proposes that life did not emerge by accident or luck from a primordial soup and a bolt of lightning. Instead, life itself came about by necessity – it follows from the laws of nature and is as inevitable as rocks rolling downhill.

more…

CrazyNeutrino said:

A NEW theory could answer the question of how life began – and throw out the need for God.

A writer on the website of atheist Richard Dawkins’ foundation says that the theory has put God “on the ropes” and has “terrified” Christians.

What a very strange thing to say. God as a necessity to explain the appearance of life on at least one planet in the Universe has not been necessary since the work of gentlemen by the name of Wallace and Darwin.

CrazyNeutrino said:

It proposes that life did not emerge by accident or luck from a primordial soup and a bolt of lightning. Instead, life itself came about by necessity – it follows from the laws of nature and is as inevitable as rocks rolling downhill.

Life being a necessary outcome of the “laws of nature”, if anything increases the probability of some sort of God entity, rather than reducing it.

But anyway, I’ll have a read.

“As Rosenberg notes, the idea that life could have evolved from non-living things is one that has been held for some time, and was described by the pre-Socratic philosophers.

But England’s theory marks the first time that has been convincingly proposed since Darwin, and is backed by mathematical research and a proposal that can be put to the test. “

Eh?

What on Earth is he talking about?

The Rev Dodgson said:

“As Rosenberg notes, the idea that life could have evolved from non-living things is one that has been held for some time, and was described by the pre-Socratic philosophers.

But England’s theory marks the first time that has been convincingly proposed since Darwin, and is backed by mathematical research and a proposal that can be put to the test. “

Eh?

What on Earth is he talking about?

I think it involves assuming a definition on the word ‘living’ though I’m not sure what confines that definition.

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

“As Rosenberg notes, the idea that life could have evolved from non-living things is one that has been held for some time, and was described by the pre-Socratic philosophers.

But England’s theory marks the first time that has been convincingly proposed since Darwin, and is backed by mathematical research and a proposal that can be put to the test. “

Eh?

What on Earth is he talking about?

I think it involves assuming a definition on the word ‘living’ though I’m not sure what confines that definition.

It would certainly involve that definition, and I don’t dismiss that as a problem when discussing the origins of life, but I was more questioning the proposition that “England’s theory marks the first time that has been convincingly proposed since Darwin”.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

“As Rosenberg notes, the idea that life could have evolved from non-living things is one that has been held for some time, and was described by the pre-Socratic philosophers.

But England’s theory marks the first time that has been convincingly proposed since Darwin, and is backed by mathematical research and a proposal that can be put to the test. “

Eh?

What on Earth is he talking about?

I think it involves assuming a definition on the word ‘living’ though I’m not sure what confines that definition.

It would certainly involve that definition, and I don’t dismiss that as a problem when discussing the origins of life, but I was more questioning the proposition that “England’s theory marks the first time that has been convincingly proposed since Darwin”.

.
ah I see. The problem I have with the proposal of measuring proof of god against a definition of what is living is that if you were Dr Who, death would not define the condition of life but would only represent a factor of it.

Richard Dawkins’ foundation for Reason and science website

By Paul Rosenberg

The Christian right’s obsessive hatred of Darwin is a wonder to behold, but it could someday be rivaled by the hatred of someone you’ve probably never even heard of. Darwin earned their hatred because he explained the evolution of life in a way that doesn’t require the hand of God. Darwin didn’t exclude God, of course, though many creationists seem incapable of grasping this point. But he didn’t require God, either, and that was enough to drive some people mad.

Darwin also didn’t have anything to say about how life got started in the first place — which still leaves a mighty big role for God to play, for those who are so inclined. But that could be about to change, and things could get a whole lot worse for creationists because of Jeremy England, a young MIT professor who’s proposed a theory, based in thermodynamics, showing that the emergence of life was not accidental, but necessary. “nder certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life,” he was quoted as saying in an article in Quanta magazine early in 2014, that’s since been republished by Scientific American and, more recently, by Business Insider. In essence, he’s saying, life itself evolved out of simpler non-living systems.

The notion of an evolutionary process broader than life itself is not entirely new. Indeed, there’s evidence, recounted by Eric Havelock in “The Liberal Temper in Greek Politics,” that it was held by the pre-Socratic natural philosophers, who also first gave us the concept of the atom, among many other things. But unlike them or other earlier precursors, England has a specific, unifying, testable evolutionary mechanism in mind.

The Full Article is here

God is on the ropes: The brilliant new science that has creationists and the Christian right terrified

and here is a one hour video presentation Titled What is life-lecture: Jeremy England

What is life-lecture: Jeremy England

CrazyNeutrino said:

Richard Dawkins’ foundation for Reason and science website

By Paul Rosenberg

The Christian right’s obsessive hatred of Darwin is a wonder to behold, but it could someday be rivaled by the hatred of someone you’ve probably never even heard of. Darwin earned their hatred because he explained the evolution of life in a way that doesn’t require the hand of God. Darwin didn’t exclude God, of course, though many creationists seem incapable of grasping this point. But he didn’t require God, either, and that was enough to drive some people mad.

Darwin also didn’t have anything to say about how life got started in the first place — which still leaves a mighty big role for God to play, for those who are so inclined. But that could be about to change, and things could get a whole lot worse for creationists because of Jeremy England, a young MIT professor who’s proposed a theory, based in thermodynamics, showing that the emergence of life was not accidental, but necessary. “nder certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life,” he was quoted as saying in an article in Quanta magazine early in 2014, that’s since been republished by Scientific American and, more recently, by Business Insider. In essence, he’s saying, life itself evolved out of simpler non-living systems.

The notion of an evolutionary process broader than life itself is not entirely new. Indeed, there’s evidence, recounted by Eric Havelock in “The Liberal Temper in Greek Politics,” that it was held by the pre-Socratic natural philosophers, who also first gave us the concept of the atom, among many other things. But unlike them or other earlier precursors, England has a specific, unifying, testable evolutionary mechanism in mind.

They are way over-selling this.

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Richard Dawkins’ foundation for Reason and science website

By Paul Rosenberg

The Christian right’s obsessive hatred of Darwin is a wonder to behold, but it could someday be rivaled by the hatred of someone you’ve probably never even heard of. Darwin earned their hatred because he explained the evolution of life in a way that doesn’t require the hand of God. Darwin didn’t exclude God, of course, though many creationists seem incapable of grasping this point. But he didn’t require God, either, and that was enough to drive some people mad.

Darwin also didn’t have anything to say about how life got started in the first place — which still leaves a mighty big role for God to play, for those who are so inclined. But that could be about to change, and things could get a whole lot worse for creationists because of Jeremy England, a young MIT professor who’s proposed a theory, based in thermodynamics, showing that the emergence of life was not accidental, but necessary. “nder certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life,” he was quoted as saying in an article in Quanta magazine early in 2014, that’s since been republished by Scientific American and, more recently, by Business Insider. In essence, he’s saying, life itself evolved out of simpler non-living systems.

The notion of an evolutionary process broader than life itself is not entirely new. Indeed, there’s evidence, recounted by Eric Havelock in “The Liberal Temper in Greek Politics,” that it was held by the pre-Socratic natural philosophers, who also first gave us the concept of the atom, among many other things. But unlike them or other earlier precursors, England has a specific, unifying, testable evolutionary mechanism in mind.

They are way over-selling this.

he’s saying, life itself evolved out of simpler non-living systems.

Oh. My. God.

Unbelievable!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Richard Dawkins’ foundation for Reason and science website

By Paul Rosenberg

The Christian right’s obsessive hatred of Darwin is a wonder to behold, but it could someday be rivaled by the hatred of someone you’ve probably never even heard of. Darwin earned their hatred because he explained the evolution of life in a way that doesn’t require the hand of God. Darwin didn’t exclude God, of course, though many creationists seem incapable of grasping this point. But he didn’t require God, either, and that was enough to drive some people mad.

Darwin also didn’t have anything to say about how life got started in the first place — which still leaves a mighty big role for God to play, for those who are so inclined. But that could be about to change, and things could get a whole lot worse for creationists because of Jeremy England, a young MIT professor who’s proposed a theory, based in thermodynamics, showing that the emergence of life was not accidental, but necessary. “nder certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life,” he was quoted as saying in an article in Quanta magazine early in 2014, that’s since been republished by Scientific American and, more recently, by Business Insider. In essence, he’s saying, life itself evolved out of simpler non-living systems.

The notion of an evolutionary process broader than life itself is not entirely new. Indeed, there’s evidence, recounted by Eric Havelock in “The Liberal Temper in Greek Politics,” that it was held by the pre-Socratic natural philosophers, who also first gave us the concept of the atom, among many other things. But unlike them or other earlier precursors, England has a specific, unifying, testable evolutionary mechanism in mind.

They are way over-selling this.

I think he is onto something, various experiments are forthcoming

The Rev Dodgson said:

They are way over-selling this.

Yup totally.

sibeen said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Richard Dawkins’ foundation for Reason and science website

By Paul Rosenberg

The Christian right’s obsessive hatred of Darwin is a wonder to behold, but it could someday be rivaled by the hatred of someone you’ve probably never even heard of. Darwin earned their hatred because he explained the evolution of life in a way that doesn’t require the hand of God. Darwin didn’t exclude God, of course, though many creationists seem incapable of grasping this point. But he didn’t require God, either, and that was enough to drive some people mad.

Darwin also didn’t have anything to say about how life got started in the first place — which still leaves a mighty big role for God to play, for those who are so inclined. But that could be about to change, and things could get a whole lot worse for creationists because of Jeremy England, a young MIT professor who’s proposed a theory, based in thermodynamics, showing that the emergence of life was not accidental, but necessary. “nder certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life,” he was quoted as saying in an article in Quanta magazine early in 2014, that’s since been republished by Scientific American and, more recently, by Business Insider. In essence, he’s saying, life itself evolved out of simpler non-living systems.

The notion of an evolutionary process broader than life itself is not entirely new. Indeed, there’s evidence, recounted by Eric Havelock in “The Liberal Temper in Greek Politics,” that it was held by the pre-Socratic natural philosophers, who also first gave us the concept of the atom, among many other things. But unlike them or other earlier precursors, England has a specific, unifying, testable evolutionary mechanism in mind.

They are way over-selling this.

he’s saying, life itself evolved out of simpler non-living systems.

Oh. My. God.

Unbelievable!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, buggerit, I going to decide to give it a name.

ABIOGENESIS, yep, that’s what I’m going to call it.

sibeen said:

sibeen said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

They are way over-selling this.

he’s saying, life itself evolved out of simpler non-living systems.

Oh. My. God.

Unbelievable!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, buggerit, I going to decide to give it a name.

ABIOGENESIS, yep, that’s what I’m going to call it.

How novel.

sibeen said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

he’s saying, life itself evolved out of simpler non-living systems.

Oh. My. God.

Unbelievable!!!!!!!!!!!!

How does that provide proof of no god? How is non-living system defined? Could the fact that a system cannot be removed provide data interpretable as ‘living’? Death does not define the condition of life so how does referencing the condition of matter define life?

sibeen said:

ABIOGENESIS, yep, that’s what I’m going to call it.

So the universe is greedy and decided to be the mother of all life forms and have the only omnipresent uterus?

Watch the video

Ok, Who wants to bet on this

Ill going to bet that he is onto something and this will kick the creationists up their arse!

Ill bet 100 bucks this will change things

Have a read of the full article at Salon

God is on the ropes: The brilliant new science that has creationists and the Christian right terrified

God is on the ropes: The brilliant new science that has creationists and the Christian right terrified

CrazyNeutrino said:

Ok, Who wants to bet on this

Ill going to bet that he is onto something and this will kick the creationists up their arse!

Ill bet 100 bucks this will change things

So you’ll owe me $100 if there is no change in opinion one way or the other this time next year?

CrazyNeutrino said:

Ok, Who wants to bet on this

Ill going to bet that he is onto something and this will kick the creationists up their arse!

Ill bet 100 bucks this will change things

If I had 100 bucks I wanted to bet, I’d take you up on that.

1) – It doesn’t matter what scientists say, creationists will say God just created it that way.
2) – Coming up with a mechanism that generates LIFE out of _non-life, rather than the action of pure chance, provides something for a a creator God to do, so Creationists will love it.

>he’s saying, life itself evolved out of simpler non-living systems.

understood from the human view of increasing compexity, which itself may be and likely isn’t or maybe even can’t be the entire picture.

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Ok, Who wants to bet on this

Ill going to bet that he is onto something and this will kick the creationists up their arse!

Ill bet 100 bucks this will change things

If I had 100 bucks I wanted to bet, I’d take you up on that.

1) – It doesn’t matter what scientists say, creationists will say God just created it that way.
2) – Coming up with a mechanism that generates LIFE out of _non-life, rather than the action of pure chance, provides something for a a creator God to do, so Creationists will love it.

Got it in err.. 2 there Rev.

We will see

I will keep a close watch on this one

CrazyNeutrino said:

I will keep a close watch on this one

I’ll just mark 26/02/2016 as a date I have to pick up a debt. ;) :P

Just how many “One True Gods” are there anyway, and at what rate are their numbers increasing?

bob(from black rock) said:

Just how many “One True Gods” are there anyway, and at what rate are their numbers increasing?

Gods multiply at an exponential equal to gravity and greater than entropy.

The fervor around proving a godless universe seems a little irrational also. It seems to me that these individuals think that passing around a proclamation that god has no fundamental observability will magically end the violence that ensues under the guise of religion. The violence in the world does not arise from religion. It arises from poverty of one descriptioon or another.

Postpocelipse said:

The fervor around proving a godless universe seems a little irrational also. It seems to me that these individuals think that passing around a proclamation that god has no fundamental observability will magically end the violence that ensues under the guise of religion. The violence in the world does not arise from religion. It arises from poverty of one descriptioon or another.

But it is religions that cause and maintain poverty.

bob(from black rock) said:

Postpocelipse said:

The fervor around proving a godless universe seems a little irrational also. It seems to me that these individuals think that passing around a proclamation that god has no fundamental observability will magically end the violence that ensues under the guise of religion. The violence in the world does not arise from religion. It arises from poverty of one descriptioon or another.

But it is religions that cause and maintain poverty.

HUH??? The economic concept of capital and inequal levels of education are the properties of poverty relevant to the human condition. The churches have only taken advantage of a system others developed to provide longevity to their own activities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilya_Prigogine

“…..Dissipative structure theory led to pioneering research in self-organizing systems, as well as philosophical inquiries into the formation of complexity on biological entities and the quest for a creative and irreversible role of time in the natural sciences…”

Postpocelipse said:

bob(from black rock) said:

Postpocelipse said:

The fervor around proving a godless universe seems a little irrational also. It seems to me that these individuals think that passing around a proclamation that god has no fundamental observability will magically end the violence that ensues under the guise of religion. The violence in the world does not arise from religion. It arises from poverty of one descriptioon or another.

But it is religions that cause and maintain poverty.

HUH??? The economic concept of capital and inequal levels of education are the properties of poverty relevant to the human condition. The churches have only taken advantage of a system others developed to provide longevity to their own activities.

Lots of very rich Arabs involved with religious terrorism.

Tamb said:

Postpocelipse said:

bob(from black rock) said:

But it is religions that cause and maintain poverty.

HUH??? The economic concept of capital and inequal levels of education are the properties of poverty relevant to the human condition. The churches have only taken advantage of a system others developed to provide longevity to their own activities.

Lots of very rich Arabs involved with religious terrorism.

And their motivation is power and politics, not proliferation of religion.

Postpocelipse said:

Tamb said:

Postpocelipse said:

HUH??? The economic concept of capital and inequal levels of education are the properties of poverty relevant to the human condition. The churches have only taken advantage of a system others developed to provide longevity to their own activities.

Lots of very rich Arabs involved with religious terrorism.

And their motivation is power and politics, not proliferation of religion.

The three are inextricably linked.

Tamb said:

Postpocelipse said:

Tamb said:

Lots of very rich Arabs involved with religious terrorism.

And their motivation is power and politics, not proliferation of religion.

The three are inextricably linked.

Motivation is difficult to direct and we’ve made progress in it’s management.

And their motivation is power and politics, which is a definition of religion!

bob(from black rock) said:

And their motivation is power and politics, which is a definition of religion!

How so? An organised religious institution requires a system of management. If it does not emulate the practices of the community it purports to shelter how is it in touch with their condition. Institutional management is a science, not a religion.

Postpocelipse said:

Tamb said:

Postpocelipse said:

And their motivation is power and politics, not proliferation of religion.

The three are inextricably linked.

Motivation is difficult to direct and we’ve made progress in it’s management.

Simple motivation is fairly simple. Die a martyr, get 72 virgins. Done.

Tamb said:

Postpocelipse said:

Tamb said:

The three are inextricably linked.

Motivation is difficult to direct and we’ve made progress in it’s management.

Simple motivation is fairly simple. Die a martyr, get 72 virgins. Done.

So the logic goes…… hmmm lifes hard…….. best option is to find the right back door to exit from instead of working out how this living thing works. okey doke! Who’s offering the best after-life options? oooooh virgins……….. wanders off thoughtlessly after the beckoning mermaids

If you call that religion I call it having no attention span.

I have a similar irritation with the anti-religious that scientists have with those who throw crazy ideas at them and then say their science is flawed when they are given an answer they don’t agree with. Those people I would define as religious never get noticed as they quietly go about their lives. Defining violence as a property of religion is of no value to addressing violence.

Postpocelipse said:

I have a similar irritation with the anti-religious that scientists have with those who throw crazy ideas at them and then say their science is flawed when they are given an answer they don’t agree with. Those people I would define as religious never get noticed as they quietly go about their lives. Defining violence as a property of religion is of no value to addressing violence.

If you know what causes the violence you are some way towards reducing it.

Tamb said:

If you know what causes the violence you are some way towards reducing it.

Which brings it back to addressing poverty for my money.

Postpocelipse said:

Tamb said:

If you know what causes the violence you are some way towards reducing it.

Which brings it back to addressing poverty for my money.
[/quote
Domestic & religious violence occur through all strata of society.

The Rev Dodgson said:

It would certainly involve that definition, and I don’t dismiss that as a problem when discussing the origins of life, but I was more questioning the proposition that “England’s theory marks the first time that has been convincingly proposed since Darwin”.

Yes, it’s a rubbishy report. That life emerged from non-living matter has been assumed as a necessary fact for a long time. Demonstrating exactly how it happened is another matter.

Tamb said:

Postpocelipse said:

Tamb said:

If you know what causes the violence you are some way towards reducing it.

Which brings it back to addressing poverty for my money.

Humans experience 2 conditions of poverty, physical and intellectual. If the primary focus of the community was establishing the perfect environment for parenting instead of applying the philosophy that managed super-consumption somehow provides progress then I imagine things would look a little different.

>Humans experience 2 conditions of poverty, physical and intellectual.

few slick western notions in that, ideology no doubt.

transition said:

>Humans experience 2 conditions of poverty, physical and intellectual.

few slick western notions in that, ideology no doubt.

To many, religion fills the intellectual void.

dumb fucken thread really, inspired by some dumb fucken article somewhere

transition said:

>Humans experience 2 conditions of poverty, physical and intellectual.

few slick western notions in that, ideology no doubt.

This cannot be shown as objectively accurate?

Tamb said:

transition said:

>Humans experience 2 conditions of poverty, physical and intellectual.

few slick western notions in that, ideology no doubt.

To many, religion fills the intellectual void.

I would agree with that entirely.

transition said:

dumb fucken thread really, inspired by some dumb fucken article somewhere

it’s small talk. like the weather

take a ritalin’n have a rest, you’re overposting.

transition said:

take a ritalin’n have a rest, you’re overposting.

I’m avoiding calling all my bill people and arranging postponements till my income is apparent again. :/

>I’m avoiding calling all my bill people and arranging postponements till my income is apparent again. :/

well go do something useful, keep with terrestrial matters, and stop fucking up a terrible thread.

transition said:

>I’m avoiding calling all my bill people and arranging postponements till my income is apparent again. :/

well go do something useful, keep with terrestrial matters, and stop fucking up a terrible thread.

what else are you supposed to do with terrible threads? make christmas tinsel out of them?

The basic idea is that thermodynamics favours the emergence of life-like matter under certain conditions, due to the tendency of matter to restructure itself to better dissipate heat. It’s a pre-Darwinian natural selection principle, and all very sensible. This England fellow is apparently providing new theoretical tools to explore the idea. Here’s the Salon article quoted in the OP article (again accompanied by “in your face” anti-creationist rhetoric):

http://www.salon.com/2015/01/03/god_is_on_the_ropes_the_brilliant_new_science_that_has_creationists_and_the_christian_right_terrified/

sibeen said:

sibeen said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

They are way over-selling this.

he’s saying, life itself evolved out of simpler non-living systems.

Oh. My. God.

Unbelievable!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, buggerit, I going to decide to give it a name.

ABIOGENESIS, yep, that’s what I’m going to call it.

from the link to the video

John Smith
He has been very careful to not go and say it, but if what he says is correct, and it does appear to be. It will hold the answer to abiogenesis.

David Olsen It likely happened but you can not use the birth analogy. While it is extremely unlikely that you were not born the probability however slight exists that you are a clone or something. That probability is vastly amplified when we talk about something like abiogenesis. Furthermore it could of happened elsewhere and been brought here by asteroids. Or it may have not happened at all.

It is not a fact, just a probable assumption.?

CrazyNeutrino said:

It is not a fact, just a probable assumption.?

It’s inevitably a fact, since life exists.

Bubblecar said:

The basic idea is that thermodynamics favours the emergence of life-like matter under certain conditions, due to the tendency of matter to restructure itself to better dissipate heat. It’s a pre-Darwinian natural selection principle, and all very sensible. This England fellow is apparently providing new theoretical tools to explore the idea. Here’s the Salon article quoted in the OP article (again accompanied by “in your face” anti-creationist rhetoric):

http://www.salon.com/2015/01/03/god_is_on_the_ropes_the_brilliant_new_science_that_has_creationists_and_the_christian_right_terrified/

I’m still greatly underwhelmed by all this.

The hypothesis that the evolutionary process started with non-biological mechanisms that nonetheless gave a survival advantage is surely the bog-standard current understanding. The suggested thermodynamic process may or may not be part of it, but there is no way that single process by itself will generate living entities out of dust.

The Rev Dodgson said:

I’m still greatly underwhelmed by all this.

The hypothesis that the evolutionary process started with non-biological mechanisms that nonetheless gave a survival advantage is surely the bog-standard current understanding. The suggested thermodynamic process may or may not be part of it, but there is no way that single process by itself will generate living entities out of dust.

True, but it’s a linking of the most basic evolutionary processes to thermodynamics laws, which may prove fruitful. Ignore all the politics.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The basic idea is that thermodynamics favours the emergence of life-like matter under certain conditions, due to the tendency of matter to restructure itself to better dissipate heat. It’s a pre-Darwinian natural selection principle, and all very sensible. This England fellow is apparently providing new theoretical tools to explore the idea. Here’s the Salon article quoted in the OP article (again accompanied by “in your face” anti-creationist rhetoric):

http://www.salon.com/2015/01/03/god_is_on_the_ropes_the_brilliant_new_science_that_has_creationists_and_the_christian_right_terrified/

I’m still greatly underwhelmed by all this.

The hypothesis that the evolutionary process started with non-biological mechanisms that nonetheless gave a survival advantage is surely the bog-standard current understanding. The suggested thermodynamic process may or may not be part of it, but there is no way that single process by itself will generate living entities out of dust.

By living entity are you describing self-autonomy? The suggestion seems to be that heats property of dispersal develops to coordinate itself cognitively. Wouldn’t that imply that the heat energy of the universe is self aware?

>Wouldn’t that imply that the heat energy of the universe is self aware?

Noooo

Bubblecar said:

>Wouldn’t that imply that the heat energy of the universe is self aware?

Noooo

So how is that not god on the global scale?

idk….. seems an argument for wasting peoples time.

Postpocelipse said:

Bubblecar said:

>Wouldn’t that imply that the heat energy of the universe is self aware?

Noooo

So how is that not god on the global scale?

?

The concept of god (a human anthropomorphic fancy) has nothing to do with physics.

Bubblecar said:

Postpocelipse said:

Bubblecar said:

>Wouldn’t that imply that the heat energy of the universe is self aware?

Noooo

So how is that not god on the global scale?

?

The concept of god (a human anthropomorphic fancy) has nothing to do with physics.

A self aware universe implies an infinite awareness, something that human awareness cannot approximate. If the universe knows everything and we are just catching up how is that not stating that we are products of a higher being? Seriously?

It’s all very sexy though. The term thermo-dynamic coupling becomes a cosmological vision of Karma-Sutra proportions.

the only long term result I can see coming from the paper is public recognition that science is the intended tool of the self aware universe

What do you mean by “self aware”? There is nothing to suggest that the universe as a whole experiences anything resembling human cognition. It’s not required and it’s not there in the empirical evidence.

seems it is your turn bubblecar.

:-)

Bubblecar said:

What do you mean by “self aware”? There is nothing to suggest that the universe as a whole experiences anything resembling human cognition. It’s not required and it’s not there in the empirical evidence.

so we can be self aware on a finite local scale but the universe would not be able to approximate that on an infinite global scale? there is no proof that the universes heat energy being aware is not an inevitable result of the process nor is there proof it is not necessary

What you have to grasp is that when we’re talking “abiogenesis” we’re talking life at its furthest remove from anything resembling “self-awareness”. The further you go back to the simplest chemical interactions, the further you recede from anything resembling cognitive processes. They’re not required and there are no structures there that can generate them.

Boris said:

seems it is your turn bubblecar.

:-)

I answer the questions I’m asked to the best of my ability at any given time. It doesn’t seem demanding to expect the same.

heat energy being aware

shakes head

Jesus Christ. What nonsense

Bubblecar said:

What you have to grasp is that when we’re talking “abiogenesis” we’re talking life at its furthest remove from anything resembling “self-awareness”. The further you go back to the simplest chemical interactions, the further you recede from anything resembling cognitive processes. They’re not required and there are no structures there that can generate them.

What I am translating from what you are saying is that we are sitting here discussing whether the universe is aware or not BUT,,, but awareness isn’t aware of itself it’s just heat dissipating at it’s most efficient. Yeah fair enough, I’m a little steam engine? It leaves me wondering why your talking about the subject if you aren’t actually interested in it.

Dropbear said:

heat energy being aware

shakes head

Jesus Christ. What nonsense

that is what I am saying!!! The argument is nonsense.

>It leaves me wondering why your talking about the subject if you aren’t actually interested in it.

Simply correcting simple nonsense, I don’t expect applause :)

Postpocelipse said:

Dropbear said:

heat energy being aware

shakes head

Jesus Christ. What nonsense

that is what I am saying!!! The argument is nonsense.

the paper is saying that the most efficient mechanism of entropy is lifeforms that evolve to awareness. The nature of the BB singularity and all time paradoxes means that where something is instated it is perpetually instated. If something exists on the small scale it has a superform on the global scale. The paper is justifying the other teams argument as Rev maintains.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The basic idea is that thermodynamics favours the emergence of life-like matter under certain conditions, due to the tendency of matter to restructure itself to better dissipate heat. It’s a pre-Darwinian natural selection principle, and all very sensible. This England fellow is apparently providing new theoretical tools to explore the idea. Here’s the Salon article quoted in the OP article (again accompanied by “in your face” anti-creationist rhetoric):

http://www.salon.com/2015/01/03/god_is_on_the_ropes_the_brilliant_new_science_that_has_creationists_and_the_christian_right_terrified/

I’m still greatly underwhelmed by all this.

The hypothesis that the evolutionary process started with non-biological mechanisms that nonetheless gave a survival advantage is surely the bog-standard current understanding. The suggested thermodynamic process may or may not be part of it, but there is no way that single process by itself will generate living entities out of dust.

We accept the big Bang which originated from nothing, so why not energy moving particles around to dissipate the energy

I dont see it as a single process by itself will generate living entities out of dust.

more like

a single process helped by a continual supply of energy generating a living entity from the chemicals that were around it.

We accept the big Bang which originated from nothing,

no we don’t.

Boris said:

We accept the big Bang which originated from nothing,

no we don’t.

Ok then, some dont, some do

when the dust has settled, in 1 year from now I will be happy to collect my 100 dollars

no scientist thinks that about the BBT.

the BBT says nothing about the initial event. it is purely about the evolution of the universe after the event.

Boris said:

no scientist thinks that about the BBT.

that it came from nothing or that it came from something, or neither of those or something else?

CrazyNeutrino said:

a single process helped by a continual supply of energy generating a living entity from the chemicals that were around it.

How about a vast range of different processes all sharing the common feature that they allowed (at least to some extent) the properties that controlled the success or otherwise of the process?

The Big Bang originated from the conditions that prevailed at the time of the Big Bang. Most cosmologists these days assume there’s a history connected to the other side of it.

Bubblecar said:

The Big Bang originated from the conditions that prevailed at the time of the Big Bang. Most cosmologists these days assume there’s a history connected to the other side of it.

Yes, but seeing we dont know the rest of the story I’m free to guess and Im happy to be wrong or right

your initial statement was incorrect. i pointed the error out.

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

a single process helped by a continual supply of energy generating a living entity from the chemicals that were around it.

How about a vast range of different processes all sharing the common feature that they allowed (at least to some extent) the properties that controlled the success or otherwise of the process?

Did you watch his Video?

What is life-lecture: A new theory for evolution. Speaker: Jeremy England, MIT.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e91D5UAz-f4

Boris said:

your initial statement was incorrect. i pointed the error out.

yes ok

from

http://www.salon.com/2015/01/03/god_is_on_the_ropes_the_brilliant_new_science_that_has_creationists_and_the_christian_right_terrified/

Quanta fleshed things out a bit more like this:

From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat. Jeremy England, a 31-year-old assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity. The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life.

Have a look at this article rev

A New Physics Theory of Life
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

A New Physics Theory of Life

the article has appeared here

A New Physics Theory of Life
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-new-physics-theory-of-life/

A New Physics Theory of Life

and here

This Physicist Has A Groundbreaking Idea About Why Life Exists
http://www.businessinsider.com/groundbreaking-idea-of-lifes-origin-2014-12?IR=T

This Physicist Has A Groundbreaking Idea About Why Life Exists

and here is a paper he did

THE JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS
139, 121923 (2013)

Statistical physics of self-replication
Jeremy L. England

Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Building 6C, 77 Massachusetts Avenue,
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA
(Received 28 April 2013; accepted 1 August 2013; published online 21 August 2013)

Self-replication is a capacity common to every species of living thing, and simple physical intuition
dictates that such a process must invariably be fueled by the production of entropy. Here, we un-
dertake to make this intuition rigorous and quantitative by deriving a lower bound for the amount
of heat that is produced during a process of self-replication in a system coupled to a thermal bath.
We find that the minimum value for the physically allowed rate of heat production is determined by
the growth rate, internal entropy, and durability of the replicator, and we discuss the implications
of this finding for bacterial cell division, as well as for the pre-biotic emergence of self-replicating
nucleic acids.
© 2013 Author(s). All article content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under
a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4818538

I’m dismissing Postpocelipse’s argument that it is nonsense.

the overall logic is sound

I should have posted this article first
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life

have fun reading the comments

CrazyNeutrino said:

I’m dismissing Postpocelipse’s argument that it is nonsense.

the overall logic is sound

I’m tempted to start a “Travelling Backwards In Time Is Possible as a Path of Least Probability” thread.

CrazyNeutrino said:

I’m dismissing Postpocelipse’s argument that it is nonsense.

the overall logic is sound

The part that is sound isn’t new, and the part that is new isn’t sound.

At least it seems to me most unlikely to be sound.

CrazyNeutrino said:

I should have posted this article first
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life

have fun reading the comments

I had a skim through. The comments seem to be roughly divided into three groups:

- This guy is a genius
- This guy is an idiot
- This guy is basically stating the obvious with a bit of overblown and oversimplified hypothesis stuck on top.

I’m in camp 3.

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I should have posted this article first
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life

have fun reading the comments

I had a skim through. The comments seem to be roughly divided into three groups:

- This guy is a genius
- This guy is an idiot
- This guy is basically stating the obvious with a bit of overblown and oversimplified hypothesis stuck on top.

I’m in camp 3.

—-

Camp 4 is a multiverse where all is possible….

funny how it was only a few weeks back I asked if entropy could be shown as making life inevitable. totally crazy idea I thought the response was.

tauto said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I should have posted this article first
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life

have fun reading the comments

I had a skim through. The comments seem to be roughly divided into three groups:

- This guy is a genius
- This guy is an idiot
- This guy is basically stating the obvious with a bit of overblown and oversimplified hypothesis stuck on top.

I’m in camp 3.

—-

Camp 4 is a multiverse where all is possible….

:)

/*

But England’s theory marks the first time that has been convincingly proposed since Darwin

…

What on Earth is he talking about?

*/

‘e’s being honest: ‘e has to be convinced, for something to be “convincing”; and the only twice ‘e’s been convinced is once when Darwin, and once when England’s theory.

SCIENCE said:

/*

But England’s theory marks the first time that has been convincingly proposed since Darwin

…

What on Earth is he talking about?

*/

‘e’s being honest: ‘e has to be convinced, for something to be “convincing”; and the only twice ‘e’s been convinced is once when Darwin, and once when England’s theory.

Maybe I should rephrase the question.

How could this combination of well accepted theory, circular reasoning and untested hypothesis be seen as in any way significant, let alone uniquely convincing?

tauto said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I should have posted this article first
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life

have fun reading the comments

I had a skim through. The comments seem to be roughly divided into three groups:

- This guy is a genius
- This guy is an idiot
- This guy is basically stating the obvious with a bit of overblown and oversimplified hypothesis stuck on top.

I’m in camp 3.

—-

Camp 4 is a multiverse where all is possible….

I’d see that as being part of Camp 3 (and doesn’t even require acceptance of a multiverse, a sufficiently large universe is all we need).

/*
/* ‘e’s being honest: ‘e has to be convinced, for something to be “convincing”; and the only twice ‘e’s been convinced is once when Darwin, and once when England’s theory. */

How could this combination of well accepted theory, circular reasoning and untested hypothesis be seen as in any way significant, let alone uniquely convincing? */

Even if not widely so, it might be fairly uniquely convincing to Rosenberg (claimed to write the comments we responded to), if Rosenberg had only twice seen that kind of thing: once when Darwin, and once when England’s theory.

But I agree with your camping.

How, would you disprove the existence of a product of a deranged imagination? it is not up to anyone to prove that “God” doesn’t exist, but that a God does exist!