More "miscellany" PARTS ONE & TWO (General)

by dhw, Friday, January 13, 2023, 09:33 (441 days ago) @ David Turell

Four types of nothing

dhw: According to your original statement, Guth “proved” there was no ‘before’ before the Big Bang. You then told us that your immaterial God existed before the BB, and you agreed that it was possible he had produced material universes before ours. No one can possibly prove that there was nothing before our BB, so why are you prolonging this pointless discussion?

DAVID: Please accept Guth's proof was only for this universe. Our discussion of possible previous events is pure theory, not applicable to Guth, who work is accepted by theoretical physicists.

But according to you he had “proved” that there was nothing before the Big Bang which led to our universe! That is “pure theory”. Nobody can possibly "prove" what happened before our BB. But I only know what you have told me about Guth. Maybe he didn’t say that at all.

Reality: in quantum mechanics

dhw: If quantum mechanics tells me that the moving bus or the sun or my wife’s death are not “fundamental, objective realities” but are the observer-dependent product of my “bias, prejudice or opinion”, then I’m afraid I will question the reliability of your interpretation of quantum mechanics, and since nobody understands quantum mechanics anyway, in my not-very-humble opinion people should stop using the word “reality” when all they really mean is the so far incomprehensible behaviour of quanta.

DAVID: This is always where your trolly leaves the rails. Our reality arises from quantum interactions. We still find it counterintuitive but must accept that arrangement.

What must we accept? We don’t understand quantum interactions. Do you or do you not accept that the moving bus, the sun, and my wife’s death are/were objective realities, and not observer-dependent products of your/my “bias, prejudice or opinion”?

Snowball Earth

DAVID: […] God doesn't control every nuance of climate change but can respond with DNA alteration in new species. God is in total control of evolutionary destiny!!! A totally different an analysis than dhw's contrary distortions of my theory.

dhw: If he does not control climate change, and can only create new species in response to whatever requirements or opportunities are made by those changes, and 99% of his creations are failed experiments as he tries to create us and our food, your idea of total control is an absolute travesty.

DAVID: God is so powerful as a designer of species, as the snowballs show us, nothing can stop His evolution advancing. God has/had total control of necessary design. Take Chixculub as a prime example. Even if His universe now runs on its own, He took advantage of it to allow mammals to progress. It is possible He tweaked a celestial body to slam into the Yucatan, I believe it happened on its own.

And so in order to fulfil his only purpose (us and our food), he has to wait until chance provides him with the conditions he needs. He responds to chance events by designing new life forms, 99% of which have nothing to do with his only purpose – they are “mistakes”, or “failed experiments”. And he gallantly continues to make his mistakes until at last chance provides him with the conditions which, despite his all-powerfulness, he himself has been unable to provide. And you call this “absolute control”.

NDEs

DAVID: Is consciousness, itself, a separate form of a real immaterial level of reality?

dhw: There are other psychic experiences in everyday life that are equally inexplicable (I wish BBella was still with us), and raise the same question you have asked. Together with the complexities of living things, these experiences are a reason for my open-minded agnosticism.

DAVID: I have revealed before my wife is psychic, sometimes startlingly so. That level of our reality exists.

Without wishing to intrude on your privacy, I wonder if it might be useful for other readers to be given examples. Many people are sceptical because they have never had such experiences themselves.

Elkhorn coral

QUOTE: [Baum] says that somatic mutations might be a previously-unrecognized source of genetic diversity for corals, which might influence how they adapt in response to stressors such as ocean warming and acidification. (dhw’s bold)

DAVID: Somatic mutations should not do this, but they did. An odd finding.

Nature is riddled with oddities. They fit in with the theory of a great free-for-all as different forms of life (cell communities) organize their own means of survival.

Tiny new genes

QUOTES: As our lineage evolved, at least 155 human genes sprung up from DNA regions previously thought of as “junk”.

...they’re important after all. One 2020 study, for example, found hundreds of functional sORFs in human cells, both in the coding and noncoding regions of the genome. (David’s bold)

….the team identified 155 microgenes that all vertebrates share. Forty-four of these are critical for cell growth…

DAVID: This is microevolution in an established species. Humans are still typically humans. The study puts an end to any arguments for junk DNA.

Indeed, why would cell communities produce new genes if they were of no use? These discoveries fit in perfectly with the concept of evolution as a process directed by cells in the constant quest to improve their chances of survival.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum