Irreducible Complexity (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, January 10, 2010, 02:59 (5431 days ago) @ David Turell


> > For chance being a tautology, we know for a fact that matter was created by chance, and life is made of matter, how could life NOT be made by chance, as it requires matter? How could we exclude chance? However complex the chemistry is to go from nonlife to life, all things that exist came from that big bang where the randomness of quantum fluctuations predominate. We may not know the mechanism, but it seems--difficult to make such a claim.
> 
> This seems like reasoning by regression. The quantum particles follow symmetry and probably supersymmetry. There are certain rules it seems, which result in quarks reaching certain combinations. And then when we get to considering the formation of living matter, we must deal with the available inorganic and simple organic molecules that are present at the time to combine, somehow, and create life. That is the proper level to look at 'chance' for life. This universe is perhaps a 'chance', but only if one considers a multiverse. Otherwise it looks quite special to me.-Why would chance be any less special? I am always amazed when people seem to suggest that the universe can only be special if there's a teleology...-Off topic but Lloyd talks a bit about a multiverse, and the reasoning behind it seems vacuous. -And my argument could be by regression... I don't know yet. It's still too fresh in my own head. The devil will be in the details; but I don't see a hole in it. If the nature of the most basic parts of the universe is probabalistic this has nothing but ramifications all the way up the chain. The science of chemistry sits firmly on a quantum model.-For the rest of it, I still have alot of work cut out for me on the physics sections--right now I simply have an educated overview.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"