Origin of Life (Introduction)
by David Turell 
, Friday, December 18, 2009, 14:16 (5250 days ago)
A Mars meteorite from the 1990's was said to suggest bacterial life at that time. Re-analysis 13 years later supports the suggestion. Magnatities are seen by new techniques; and resemble those on Earth. If true, Mars had life 4.5 billion years ago.-http://www.physorg.com/news180264793.html
Origin of Life
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, December 19, 2009, 16:37 (5249 days ago) @ David Turell
A Mars meteorite from the 1990's was said to suggest bacterial life at that time. Re-analysis 13 years later supports the suggestion. Magnatities are seen by new techniques; and resemble those on Earth. If true, Mars had life 4.5 billion years ago. > > http://www.physorg.com/news180264793.html-I actually thought you would have been against this idea.
--
\"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.\"
Origin of Life
by David Turell , Saturday, December 19, 2009, 16:50 (5249 days ago) @ xeno6696
A Mars meteorite from the 1990's was said to suggest bacterial life at that time. Re-analysis 13 years later supports the suggestion. Magnatities are seen by new techniques; and resemble those on Earth. If true, Mars had life 4.5 billion years ago. > > > > http://www.physorg.com/news180264793.html > > I actually thought you would have been against this idea.-Not at all. If the universe is fine-tuned and coded to produce life, whenever it can happen (Mars 4.5 billion years ago), it fits my theory. The sun put out less heat (30%?) at that time so life had to deal with a very cold climate and may have been an extremeophile, which also supports my theory that a designing intelligence simply wanted to produce life through the construction of this universe; allowed, by planning for evolution of universe and life to both occur, kind of fitting Frank's process thinking. The Earth turned out to be the ideal spot. Did God know it would finally be the Earth: perhaps and perhaps not?
Origin of Life
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, December 20, 2009, 16:54 (5248 days ago) @ David Turell
A Mars meteorite from the 1990's was said to suggest bacterial life at that time. Re-analysis 13 years later supports the suggestion. Magnatities are seen by new techniques; and resemble those on Earth. If true, Mars had life 4.5 billion years ago. > > > > > > http://www.physorg.com/news180264793.html > > > > I actually thought you would have been against this idea. > > Not at all. If the universe is fine-tuned and coded to produce life, whenever it can happen (Mars 4.5 billion years ago), it fits my theory. The sun put out less heat (30%?) at that time so life had to deal with a very cold climate and may have been an extremeophile, which also supports my theory that a designing intelligence simply wanted to produce life through the construction of this universe; allowed, by planning for evolution of universe and life to both occur, kind of fitting Frank's process thinking. The Earth turned out to be the ideal spot. Did God know it would finally be the Earth: perhaps and perhaps not?-You see, the problem is that the converse position can be drawn with the same data... it wouldn't prove anything. If it turns out that life is common on any planet like ours--that's all it really means. -You've talked about a probability limit. I'm going to get a little aggressive here:-1. What is the number of this limit, and what reasons/systemic justification do you have for positing this number? -2. What are you comparing against? Meaning, if you have a probability limit, you have to have a system of measurement for it (or probability cannot be used).-3. What are your assumptions taken in support of 1 and 2? -4. Why do you think the assumptions are reasonable? -5. How confident can we be of this limit? (This part may shake out as we grapple with all of this.) -6. This question ties in heavily with 1 and 2. You have brought up Bayesian ideas somewhat recently--anytime there's a contingent probability. Considering that many contingent probabilities are misleading either due to current ignorance, why do you rule out discrete probabilities? An illustration here might help:-If you cut the skin of a healthy human adult, their blood will clot. If you insert a sperm cell into an egg, you will have a stem cell. -How do you separate deterministic from the contingent in biological systems?
--
\"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.\"
Origin of Life
by David Turell , Monday, December 21, 2009, 02:07 (5248 days ago) @ xeno6696
> You see, the problem is that the converse position can be drawn with the same data... it wouldn't prove anything. If it turns out that life is common on any planet like ours--that's all it really means.-I accept that. That life appears at all is due to the fact that this is the perfect universe for life like ours, one hundred or more precise parameters required. > > You've talked about a probability limit. I'm going to get a little aggressive here: > > 1. What is the number of this limit, and what reasons/systemic justification do you have for positing this number?-As a non-mathematician, I know of Borel's 10^ minus 50, and Dembski who tripled it to 10^ minus 150. I have no systematic justification. I don'tknow how to establish one except, I know the universe is 10^18 seconds old. I know that there are roughly 10^80 particles. > > 2. What are you comparing against? Meaning, if you have a probability limit, you have to have a system of measurement for it (or probability cannot be used).-Somehow mathematically I would think it can be calculated that, knowing methane, CO2, N2O, and other simple molecles exist naturally, what are the odds they could get together against time to a meaningful amino acid, and then from there to RNA and then DNA, each with a meaningful code inserted, again all against the time alloted, 700-800 million years (the time for earth formation to recognized life on earth). > > 3. What are your assumptions taken in support of 1 and 2?-I have faith, not assumptions. How did Dembski calculate the odds for the E. Coli flagellum? I don't know. Are his assumptions correct? I have no way of knowing. I know you don't trust Dembski, but were his assumptions correct as he calculated odds for the proper mix of amino acids? > > 4. Why do you think the assumptions are reasonable? -I am way beyond my depth here.- > > 5. How confident can we be of this limit? (This part may shake out as we grapple with all of this.)-Those limits I quoted make superficial sense to me. At 10^18th seconds, any negative odds beyond that should be impressive for my point of view.-Shapiro in Origins calculated that simple life with only four amino acids and ten enzymes assembled by chance: "the odds of getting it right would be 1 in 10^150." Please read Shapiro. I swear to you he is an atheist. > > 6. This question ties in heavily with 1 and 2. You have brought up Bayesian ideas somewhat recently--anytime there's a contingent probability. Considering that many contingent probabilities are misleading either due to current ignorance, why do you rule out discrete probabilities? An illustration here might help: > > If you cut the skin of a healthy human adult, their blood will clot. > If you insert a sperm cell into an egg, you will have a stem cell. > > How do you separate deterministic from the contingent in biological systems?-In biologic systems things are only determinisitc when the correct molecular crew cooperate together to produce the result. The blood clotting cascade has over 17 steps with a feed-back loop at each spot. I feel you have asked the question from the wrong perspective. Each step in setting up the cascade is contingent upon some process: chance or directed. I choose directed.-Lobsters have two steps: they have no heart, no blood vessels, and no blood pressure. "To each according to his need". Ken Miller loves to use the lobster in his arguments, that minor step-wise progression lowered the odds for chance. But to get to humans, at the same time a complex human circulatory system is developed in parallel with the clotting mechanism. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of changes going on simultaneously, not insignificantly an electricity-run pumping heart with four chambers. . In my view Miller is dumb, dumb, dumb.
Origin of Life
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, December 23, 2009, 22:07 (5245 days ago) @ David Turell
> As a non-mathematician, I know of Borel's 10^ minus 50, and Dembski who tripled it to 10^ minus 150. I have no systematic justification. I don'tknow how to establish one except, I know the universe is 10^18 seconds old. I know that there are roughly 10^80 particles. > > -Alright. That's a good start. Here's where I think the position needs to be refined, in no particular order: -1. One second is entirely too long. You and I are both aware that a chemical reaction, defined as the exchange of electrons in order to form bonds happens at the speed of light. The number of seconds that the universe has been here is misleading and for sure Dembski uses that to his advantage when talking at the public. If you pick a larger unit of time, you make the appearance of ANY combination of matter less likely to appear. You need to go down to the smallest possible unit of time, which ultimately would be the amount of time needed for a photon to travel its own length. This drastically shifts even his own numbers, while I don't have a number for you right now I can derive it for you. Why this is significant is that I can ask you a question: How many attempts per second are Borel and Dembski Measuring? I can't answer for Borel, but Dembski assumes one attempt per second. The total number of *possible* attempts is that unit of light that I discussed above. Basically--especially in Dembski's case, his entire analysis fails on this point alone. His model is dead in the water. -> > 2. What are you comparing against? Meaning, if you have a probability limit, you have to have a system of measurement for it (or probability cannot be used). > > Somehow mathematically I would think it can be calculated that, knowing methane, CO2, N2O, and other simple molecles exist naturally, what are the odds they could get together against time to a meaningful amino acid, and then from there to RNA and then DNA, each with a meaningful code inserted, again all against the time alloted, 700-800 million years (the time for earth formation to recognized life on earth). -You're not going small enough, though your method is sound. You need to use the correct time scale. -> > > > 3. What are your assumptions taken in support of 1 and 2? > > I have faith, not assumptions. How did Dembski calculate the odds for the E. Coli flagellum? I don't know. Are his assumptions correct? I have no way of knowing. I know you don't trust Dembski, but were his assumptions correct as he calculated odds for the proper mix of amino acids? > -No, for reasons stated above. Chemical reactions happen on the quantum scale. Chemistry's models though fitting and appropriate for analyzing reactions don't give enough explanation on what happens during the reaction. What happens? The only terms I know that you MIGHT is "bit fiddling." -> > > > 4. Why do you think the assumptions are reasonable? > > I am way beyond my depth here. > > > > > > 5. How confident can we be of this limit? (This part may shake out as we grapple with all of this.) > > Those limits I quoted make superficial sense to me. At 10^18th seconds, any negative odds beyond that should be impressive for my point of view. > -The assumptions you need to ask are:-How many attempts per second? If you assume 2 attempts per second your number is 10^36. If 4, you get 10^72. Now we're within the total number of particles in the universe. -Mathematically speaking, once you reach 10^80 attempts you've had one attempt at every possible combination of matter in the universe. This means that you've had enough time to try every combination once. Now you should start to get the idea why I say "it wasn't by chance." Life's appearance at this point becomes a deterministic property of the universe, designed or not. -However, what are the chances for life to appear? You can't answer this question until you find a mechanism for life coming from non life. This is because the only thing we can study--biochemistry--is POST-LIFE. It's a circular study. Everything we can study is the result of 4.5Billion years of evolution; there's no way to tell for sure that the life we have now is the same as it was when it started. We can't make that claim.-When I jumped into this forum, it was on the topic of chance, I just... lacked the sophistication to try and explain why it was that the argument "life is too complex to have arrived by chance" doesn't have much to support it. -I will gladly read Shapiro--it's well overdue. My only hope is that he too, provides the complete mathematical background for his treatise.
--
\"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.\"
Origin of Life
by David Turell , Thursday, December 24, 2009, 01:53 (5245 days ago) @ xeno6696
> You're not going small enough, though your method is sound. You need to use the correct time scale. -> > > > No, for reasons stated above. Chemical reactions happen on the quantum scale. Chemistry's models though fitting and appropriate for analyzing reactions don't give enough explanation on what happens during the reaction. What happens? The only terms I know that you MIGHT is "bit fiddling." - What you are missing in organic chemistry is that organic reactions between molecules usually need enzymes for many reactions or the reactions can take millions of years to happen. You are correct about inorganic chemistry. > > However, what are the chances for life to appear? You can't answer this question until you find a mechanism for life coming from non life. This is because the only thing we can study--biochemistry--is POST-LIFE. It's a circular study. Everything we can study is the result of 4.5Billion years of evolution; there's no way to tell for sure that the life we have now is the same as it was when it started. We can't make that claim. > > I will gladly read Shapiro--it's well overdue. My only hope is that he too, provides the complete mathematical background for his treatise.-His example I quoted uses an imaginary organism with four amino acids, 10 enzymes, and each enzyme only 25 amino acids long. This is ridiculously simplistic. Enzymes are usually in the hundreds to thousands. The simplest cells we know are way more complex than that. And Shapiro ignores the fact that only left-handed amino acids can be used. Who knows what the odds become then for his imaginary organisms.
Origin of Life
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, December 24, 2009, 20:04 (5244 days ago) @ David Turell
> What you are missing in organic chemistry is that organic reactions between molecules usually need enzymes for many reactions or the reactions can take millions of years to happen. You are correct about inorganic chemistry. > > -David, I've taken a semester of Organic, enough to know that the reactions themselves still happen as I've stated. (When the energy in the system hits the "magic number" it will proceed spontaneously.) Also remember that the process of "nonlife to life" is going to be a mix of organic and inorganic chemistry. -Even if we take organic reactions by themselves, enzymes simply lower the energy barrier for otherwise nonreactive components. How much background energy was really present? The only way to answer that is to find a "proto-earth" nearby and explore its chemistry. -I also forgot to mention another factor in my description: Entropy. As the universe ages, information is permanently lost. This directly affects the total number of particles available for its computation. In other words, as time goes forward the number of possible combinations decreases. This should make sense, however, as the combinations possible during the Big Bang can only have happened when matter was as compacted as it was. This also affects the numbers we're talking about. - > > However, what are the chances for life to appear? You can't answer this question until you find a mechanism for life coming from non life. This is because the only thing we can study--biochemistry--is POST-LIFE. It's a circular study. Everything we can study is the result of 4.5Billion years of evolution; there's no way to tell for sure that the life we have now is the same as it was when it started. We can't make that claim. > > > > > I will gladly read Shapiro--it's well overdue. My only hope is that he too, provides the complete mathematical background for his treatise. > > His example I quoted uses an imaginary organism with four amino acids, 10 enzymes, and each enzyme only 25 amino acids long. This is ridiculously simplistic. Enzymes are usually in the hundreds to thousands. The simplest cells we know are way more complex than that. And Shapiro ignores the fact that only left-handed amino acids can be used. Who knows what the odds become then for his imaginary organisms.-But as I've already stated--the models discussed by Dembski at the least still only assume 1 attempt per second in a given time in a given place. Even in organic chemistry, this won't be the case.
--
\"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.\"
Origin of Life
by David Turell , Friday, December 25, 2009, 01:01 (5244 days ago) @ xeno6696
> Even if we take organic reactions by themselves, enzymes simply lower the energy barrier for otherwise nonreactive components. How much background energy was really present? The only way to answer that is to find a "proto-earth" nearby and explore its chemistry. -Fair enough, considering the first simple reactions in early origin of life, but only simple organic reactions need enough heat, and can do without enzymes. I can look up all sorts of references for you, but the millions of years comment without enzymes is a common point made by various authors. Please take my word for this. > > I also forgot to mention another factor in my description: Entropy. As the universe ages, information is permanently lost. This directly affects the total number of particles available for its computation. In other words, as time goes forward the number of possible combinations decreases. > > > > > However, what are the chances for life to appear? You can't answer this question until you find a mechanism for life coming from non life. This is because the only thing we can study--biochemistry--is POST-LIFE. It's a circular study. Everything we can study is the result of 4.5Billion years of evolution; there's no way to tell for sure that the life we have now is the same as it was when it started. We can't make that claim.-This is a great point.- > > But as I've already stated--the models discussed by Dembski at the least still only assume 1 attempt per second in a given time in a given place. Even in organic chemistry, this won't be the case.-Dembski's discussion of the formation of the E. coli flagellum does not use time, only selection of the appropriate amino acids and sequestration in the proper location to make the biomotor. Starts on page 292 of No Free Lunch. I don't know that I have ever seen him use time. Shapiro does in one of his examples, one second, cubic cms. of the earth's oceans, etc. if my memory is correct. Not worth reviewing, as I thought it was a silly example.
Origin of Life
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, December 25, 2009, 04:53 (5244 days ago) @ David Turell
> > Even if we take organic reactions by themselves, enzymes simply lower the energy barrier for otherwise nonreactive components. How much background energy was really present? The only way to answer that is to find a "proto-earth" nearby and explore its chemistry. > > Fair enough, considering the first simple reactions in early origin of life, but only simple organic reactions need enough heat, and can do without enzymes. I can look up all sorts of references for you, but the millions of years comment without enzymes is a common point made by various authors. Please take my word for this. > -It's those early, semi-inorganic reactions that should be of most interest. I know that biochemical enzymes do more "tricky" stuff such as altering shapes of other molecules and whatnot... but that's getting ahead of where I want to focus. -> > > > I also forgot to mention another factor in my description: Entropy. As the universe ages, information is permanently lost. This directly affects the total number of particles available for its computation. In other words, as time goes forward the number of possible combinations decreases. > > > > > > > However, what are the chances for life to appear? You can't answer this question until you find a mechanism for life coming from non life. This is because the only thing we can study--biochemistry--is POST-LIFE. It's a circular study. Everything we can study is the result of 4.5Billion years of evolution; there's no way to tell for sure that the life we have now is the same as it was when it started. We can't make that claim. > > This is a great point. > > > > > > But as I've already stated--the models discussed by Dembski at the least still only assume 1 attempt per second in a given time in a given place. Even in organic chemistry, this won't be the case. > > Dembski's discussion of the formation of the E. coli flagellum does not use time, only selection of the appropriate amino acids and sequestration in the proper location to make the biomotor. Starts on page 292 of No Free Lunch. I don't know that I have ever seen him use time. Shapiro does in one of his examples, one second, cubic cms. of the earth's oceans, etc. if my memory is correct. Not worth reviewing, as I thought it was a silly example.-Here's the problem: A probability model in this kind of problem that *doesn't* include time can only be assuming a one-shot dice roll for whatever event its trying to study. And a one-shot die roll is inaccurate for this system--but exactly the kind of odds you'd want to represent to a naive public as it would be an astronomically small percent.
--
\"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.\"
Origin of Life
Matt: However, what are the chances for life to appear? You can't answer this question until you find a mechanism for life coming from non life.-I hesitate to enter this particular discussion, because the mathematical calculations are way over my head, but this statement and those that follow are, I think, within my compass. You go on to say that the argument "life is too complex to have arrived by chance" doesn't have much to support it. I don't like this argument either. I like the argument: "life is too complex for me to believe that it arrived by chance." And my non-belief (please distinguish this from disbelief) relates precisely to the statement I've quoted at the start. We do not know what the mechanism is. How can you even begin to make mathematical calculations about odds, probability, time divided by attempts, when you don't know what you're looking for? You use this argument ... which seems perfectly logical to me ... to counter the claim that life can't have "arrived by chance", but it is equally applicable to the claim that life did arrive by chance. (I tried in my non-scientific way to demonstrate limits to credulity with my monkeys on typewriters and my COOL machine.) David has acknowledged many times that his belief in a designer requires faith. Atheists should also acknowledge that their belief in chance origins requires faith, but they rarely do. Agnostics lack faith in either theory, and so remain open to both.-In the meantime, I am about to demonstrate total faith in my wife's design of turkey followed by Christmas pud. Once again, best wishes to everyone.
Origin of Life
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, December 24, 2009, 20:38 (5244 days ago) @ dhw
dhw, -> Matt: However, what are the chances for life to appear? You can't answer this question until you find a mechanism for life coming from non life. > > ...We do not know what the mechanism is. How can you even begin to make mathematical calculations about odds, probability, time divided by attempts, when you don't know what you're looking for? -A math joke will illustrate what I'm trying to bring to this discussion.-"An engineer, a physicist and a mathematician are staying in a hotel. The engineer wakes up and smells smoke. He goes out into the hallway and sees a fire, so he fills a trash can from his room with water and douses the fire. He goes back to bed. Later, the physicist wakes up and smells smoke. He opens his door and sees a fire in the hallway. He walks down the hall to a fire hose and after calculating the flame velocity, distance, water pressure, trajectory, etc. extinguishes the fire with the minimum amount of water and energy needed. Later, the mathematician wakes up and smells smoke. He goes to the hall, sees the fire and then the fire hose. He thinks for a moment and then exclaims, "Ah, a solution exists!" and then goes back to bed. "-As I'm playing the mathematician, I'm trying to put bounds on the problem; to set up the problem in such a way that we can gain a solution. You can say that I'm trying to set the course here. Specifically, for us to *strongly* argue that "life is too complex to have arrived by chance," there are several things that need to be done. We need to define what we know, what needs to be known, and what is known about the things we need in order to solve the problem. -To more formally answer your question, in order to make a probability argument--something that is viciously difficult to do--we need to know what we're pulling our sample from. That's where the total number of particles in the universe comes in. But then we need something to measure our attempts by--which is an amount of time. Because of Einstein, time = matter, so 1 particle = 1 unit of time. If we pass through enough time such that it is equal to the total number of particles in the universe, then we've had enough time to try every possible combination. The problem with how most people (atheist as well) argue with this system, is in not providing an accurate model for the number of attempts--if they even choose to define it. -So the answer to the question of probability is one where we have to gauge the amount of time needed to reach a specific combination. Normally, time wouldn't need to be an issue, but there are contingencies that need to be satisfied. -Suffice it to say at this point that though we possess much knowledge, it isn't sufficient to bring this to a resolution without the mechanism by which life came to be. -What I've built however is a system that I think will allow us to analyze probabilities in such a way that we can make a claim for or against a creator--without needing to rely on something as "soft and squishy" as faith. -Who knows, maybe I'll be a published philosopher some day, lol! ->You use this argument ... which seems perfectly logical to me ... to counter the claim that life can't have "arrived by chance", but it is equally applicable to the claim that life did arrive by chance. (I tried in my non-scientific way to demonstrate limits to credulity with my monkeys on typewriters and my COOL machine.) David has acknowledged many times that his belief in a designer requires faith. Atheists should also acknowledge that their belief in chance origins requires faith, but they rarely do. Agnostics lack faith in either theory, and so remain open to both. > -I guess I find myself more thoroughly agnostic than I would have admitted when I came to the board. While I have no faith in either selection, for obvious reasons there is one I favor. I'm just trying to set things up to help us reach a conclusion, one way or another...
--
\"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.\"
Origin of Life
Matt: ...in order to make a probability argument ... something that is viciously difficult to do ... we need to know what we're pulling our sample from. That's where the total number of particles in the universe comes in. But then we need something to measure our attempts by ... which is an amount of time. Because of Einstein, time = matter, so 1 particle = 1 unit of time. If we pass through enough time such that it is equal to the total number of particles in the universe, then we've had enough time to try every possible combination.-We are covering the same ground as under Epistemology of Design, so we can stay on this thread, though I'm tempted to rechristen it Epistemology of Chance. I like the story of the engineer, physicist and mathematician, but although a solution must exist (i.e. the truth is out there somewhere), I remain sceptical that you've built a system that "will allow us to analyze probabilities in such a way that we can make a claim for or against a creator". Even if you were able to make a claim for or against chance "without needing to rely on something as soft and squishy as faith", we both know there is more to a creator than a mathematical formula.-Now, I shall ask you in advance to forgive me for my obtuseness, but I don't suppose I'm the only reader of these posts who needs guidance. Bearing in mind that the nature of 96% of the universe remains unknown to us, how do you know the "total number" of particles? How do you know that that "total number" has always been the same, and how do you know the "total number" of possible combinations, say, 4.5 ... 3.5 billion years ago? Why do you work according to a formula of time and particles, and not a formula of time and the number of possible combinations of particles? And how do you calculate the odds for/against a combination when you don't actually know what that combination is? -You are trying to provide "an accurate model for the number of attempts". Scientists talk of the "primordial soup", creating a picture of a vast cauldron into which the ingredients are thrown and stirred, constantly being mixed with one another to try out new flavours. But according to the theory of chance, there was no-one to throw and stir. The ingredients had no form of locomotion. They were at the mercy of what ... winds, waters, eruptions, explosions? All such movements are incalculable, and not one of them was "attempting" anything. They were Hoyle's bits and pieces being blown round the scrapyard. How, then, can you accurately calculate the number of "attempts" made, say, 4.5 ... 3.5 billion years ago?-I'm not trying to be awkward. These are things I simply don't understand, and I really appreciate your "playing the mathematician" and "trying to set things up to help us to reach a conclusion, one way or another...". In any case, the discussion is interesting in itself, so I hope my questions will be less of a hindrance than an aid to clarification.
Origin of Life
by David Turell , Saturday, December 26, 2009, 14:25 (5242 days ago) @ dhw
I'm not trying to be awkward. These are things I simply don't understand, and I really appreciate your "playing the mathematician" and "trying to set things up to help us to reach a conclusion, one way or another...". In any case, the discussion is interesting in itself, so I hope my questions will be less of a hindrance than an aid to clarification.-Matt as a model math wizzard is trying for the perfect solution. His approach is perfectly correct. The problem as I see it is that we can make no potential theoretical advances, allowing some philosophic direction to our thinking, if we are playing now for the end game. Shapiro, Dembski, Behe and others use the odds of available molecules over an unspecified, but not instantaneous, period of time, to fall together by chance to make some meaningful result, and those odds are enormously negative.
Origin of Life
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, December 26, 2009, 20:51 (5242 days ago) @ dhw
dhw,-> Now, I shall ask you in advance to forgive me for my obtuseness, but I don't suppose I'm the only reader of these posts who needs guidance. Bearing in mind that the nature of 96% of the universe remains unknown to us, how do you know the "total number" of particles? How do you know that that "total number" has always been the same, and how do you know the "total number" of possible combinations, say, 4.5 ... 3.5 billion years ago? Why do you work according to a formula of time and particles, and not a formula of time and the number of possible combinations of particles? And how do you calculate the odds for/against a combination when you don't actually know what that combination is? > -I'll answer these as succinctly as possible. -The total number of particles in the universe is extrapolated from information that physicists have collected while studying our universe with astronomers and cosmologists. The full range has a HUGE degree of error, from 10^-72 to 10^87. that's a range of 16 orders of magnitude. I know a little bit about how they reason out the total number, but it rests on both the physical properties of subatomic particles and how many of those it would take in order to show us the universe as we see it today. -As for the combinations question, it is implicit in the probability distribution. You need to deduce the combination of particles that produces life, but you're pulling those particles from a finite sample. You can't just compare life's combination to time--it isn't enough because you need to find that combinations chance of appearing among all the possibilities within the cosmos--which is also determined by the number of particles. -Your question about the "total number, 3.5 to 4.5 Bn years ago" is pertinent. It is fair to say that from what we currently know from chemistry, it seems preposterous that life came about. But for us to be able to say with any level of confidence that it couldn't be by chance, we can't just look at earth. The combination must be "preposterous" everywhere in the cosmos.-For the "Total Number" remaining constant; it is a physical law that matter cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. There is no observed force in the cosmos that is "generating" matter, though from Black Holes you could argue that there is precedent for matter being... permanently sequestered. Information that is forever lost. But at this point this is unneeded complexity though it would serve to shrink the "total number" for purposes of matter available to use. -For the question on only knowing 4% of the Universe, we have no reason at present to assert that "dark matter" or "dark energy" plays a role in the creation of life. *our* universe is the one of matter and is described extremely well by physics and chemistry both. -This... system I'm constructing, is to guide us to an eventual solution; not something that will likely happen in our lifetimes. The Final answer to your question is that once you find the combination for life, you will have your probability. (Not before, because there isn't anything to yet calculate.) - > You are trying to provide "an accurate model for the number of attempts". Scientists talk of the "primordial soup", creating a picture of a vast cauldron into which the ingredients are thrown and stirred, constantly being mixed with one another to try out new flavours. But according to the theory of chance, there was no-one to throw and stir. The ingredients had no form of locomotion. They were at the mercy of what ... winds, waters, eruptions, explosions? All such movements are incalculable, and not one of them was "attempting" anything. They were Hoyle's bits and pieces being blown round the scrapyard. How, then, can you accurately calculate the number of "attempts" made, say, 4.5 ... 3.5 billion years ago? > -This is a physical property of chemical reactions. The laws of physics as we know them only break down when you reverse the big bang all the way back to the singularity that caused it. 3.5-4.5 Bn yrs ago the laws of physics were the same then as they are now. A chemical reaction, whether it is biochemical, organic, or inorganic, only occurs from a transfer of energy, and a chemical reaction is an exchange of electrons--nothing more. -> I'm not trying to be awkward. These are things I simply don't understand, and I really appreciate your "playing the mathematician" and "trying to set things up to help us to reach a conclusion, one way or another...". In any case, the discussion is interesting in itself, so I hope my questions will be less of a hindrance than an aid to clarification.-Just remember that as I'm "Playing mathematician," all I'm doing is setting up what we need in order to get a solution, and leaving the rest to the future.
--
\"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.\"
Origin of Life
Matt is constructing a system in order to calculate the probability of life coming about by chance, though the solution is not likely to happen in our lifetime. -First of all, thank you for your patient and clear answers to my list of questions. I think (hope) I now have a better understanding of what you're trying to do, but as I'm in no position to judge its scientific feasibility, I can only go on making general observations. Your answers are of very real interest to me, precisely because these are fields of which I know so little, so I hope I'm not overstretching your patience. -I'll begin with an old issue, on which I think we agree. You wrote: "It is fair to say that from what we currently know from chemistry, it seems preposterous that life came about. But for us to be able to say with any level of confidence that it COULDN'T be by chance, we can't just look at earth. The combination must be "preposterous" everywhere in the cosmos." This "preposterousness", plus the fact that our present knowledge of the cosmos is so limited, must lay equal doubt on the claim that life COULD be by chance. Therefore, until we know all the conditions and combinations, the feasibility or otherwise of life coming about by chance remains a matter of belief and not of science. In case the message is not clear, this brackets theism and atheism together as dependent on different types of faith.-The established physical law that "matter cannot be created or destroyed" raises another old question (see the thread on Nothing): if our universe began with the Big Bang, what went bang? According to this law, it could only have been existing matter, and therefore the Big Bang can't have been the beginning of the universe. Alternatively, if the Big Bang did create matter, then matter CAN be created, and the fact that we have not observed any "generating" force in the cosmos does not mean that there is no such force. Of course I'm not postulating anything. I'm floundering! And to make matters worse, in view of the fact that 96% of the universe's matter/energy remains unknown, I still don't see how physicists can calculate the total number of particles. And doesn't the "HUGE degree of error" make such calculations worthless anyway? -The same problem applies to the origin of life. You write: "For the question on only knowing 4% of the universe, we have no reason at present to assert that "dark matter" or "dark energy" plays a role in the creation of life." Recently (13 December at 20.03) you wrote "since every particle contains information about the universe all things are tied together more closely than one could ever imagine..." Might not the 4% of cosmic matter/energy that we actually know be closely tied to the 96% we don't know, and might not some of the missing information about life lie in the 96% rather than the 4%? Another imponderable factor?-In response to my point that the "ingredients" for life had no form of locomotion, you reply that chemical reactions are "an exchange of electrons ... nothing more". Scientists in search of the Holy Grail of abiogenesis consciously conduct experiments, i.e. investigate possible combinations. My argument was that according to the chance theory, 4.5 ... 3.5 billion years ago no-one was conducting experiments, and the ingredients had no way of combining and transferring their energy except through unpredictable, unconscious elements. That was why I queried how you could accurately count the number of "attempts". But maybe I've misunderstood your answer.-Let me really stick my neck out now, and try to sum up your hypothesis in my own layman's terms. If we knew the total number of particle combinations possible in our cosmos (which we don't), and if we knew the combination that led to life (which we don't), and if we knew what other combinations and conditions might also lead to different forms of life (which we don't), we would be able to calculate the number of "attempts" necessary to achieve a combination for life. If we divided the number of attempts necessary by the age of the universe at the time when we know life began (say 10 billion years?), we would be able to calculate the number of attempts necessary per second/minute/hour for chance to have created life (though we would have no way of knowing whether they took place).-I apologize in advance if this is all wrong, and I fully acknowledge that I am a non-swimmer jumping in at the deep end, but the object is clarification, and I see no other way of getting it. I can only hope you'll find it of some use to explain your ideas so that even a non-scientist like me can follow them. If my summary is not wrong, though, aren't we still left, not with a solution but with a question of belief ... namely, whether chance could and did carry out the requisite number of "attempts" within the given time?
Origin of Life
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, December 28, 2009, 18:30 (5240 days ago) @ dhw
dhw, > ... Therefore, until we know all the conditions and combinations, the feasibility or otherwise of life coming about by chance remains a matter of belief and not of science. In case the message is not clear, this brackets theism and atheism together as dependent on different types of faith. > -Of this we are in staunch agreement. -> The established physical law that "matter cannot be created or destroyed" raises another old question (see the thread on Nothing): if our universe began with the Big Bang, what went bang? According to this law, it could only have been existing matter, and therefore the Big Bang can't have been the beginning of the universe. -The Singularity that Cosmologists refer to, is a point where everything that IS the universe existed. The reason that physics breaks down at this point, is that even space didn't exist--There was no time, no matter and therefore no point of reference. Only raw energy--and there was a fixed amount. They can put an upper limit on the amount of energy (particles) due to the fact that if you have too much energy, the matter that transformed from that energy would move away from each other too rapidly to form all the structures that we see. Too slowly, and everything would just be a large massive blob. If it puts you off that I seem to use matter and energy interchangeably, I apologize in advance but it is my intention as matter is really seen as an expression of... "stored information." To summarize: If there was an infinite amount of energy, the "Big Bang" would have been too large for things such as our solar system to form; in fact even if our world DID somehow manage to form in that universe, we wouldn't even be able to see other stars. We also know that the Big Bang DID in fact, happen. Observations of the "Microwave Background" that you may have heard about verified the signature of this expansion. We know--for a fact--that our universe began at a single point and expanded.- Alternatively, if the Big Bang did create matter, then matter CAN be created, and the fact that we have not observed any "generating" force in the cosmos does not mean that there is no such force. Of course I'm not postulating anything. I'm floundering! And to make matters worse, in view of the fact that 96% of the universe's matter/energy remains unknown, I still don't see how physicists can calculate the total number of particles. And doesn't the "HUGE degree of error" make such calculations worthless anyway? > -I believe I've addressed most of this. The "rest of the universe" that you discuss is currently under investigation by astronomers and cosmologists; but all that goes into making life is in that 4% of the universe we call matter. The rest of the "unknown" is "dark matter" and "dark energy" which if they truly exist at all, have properties that would make it rather hostile for us here on earth considering that dark energy by itself seems to work against gravity. -No, the huge degree of error does not make calculations worthless: we know that below 10^72 there isn't enough energy for our universe (as we know it) and above 10^87 there's too much. - > The same problem applies to the origin of life. You write: "For the question on only knowing 4% of the universe, we have no reason at present to assert that "dark matter" or "dark energy" plays a role in the creation of life." Recently (13 December at 20.03) you wrote "since every particle contains information about the universe all things are tied together more closely than one could ever imagine..." Might not the 4% of cosmic matter/energy that we actually know be closely tied to the 96% we don't know, and might not some of the missing information about life lie in the 96% rather than the 4%? Another imponderable factor? > -If dark matter were present in our solar system, it wouldn't be a mystery. The role that dark energy seems to play is in accelerating expansion. We know that the outer boundaries of our universe are moving at 3x the speed of light because of Dark Energy. (Again, assuming it *truly* exists.)
--
\"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.\"
Origin of Life (Pt2)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, December 28, 2009, 18:31 (5240 days ago) @ dhw
In response to my point that the "ingredients" for life had no form of locomotion, you reply that chemical reactions are "an exchange of electrons ... nothing more". Scientists in search of the Holy Grail of abiogenesis consciously conduct experiments, i.e. investigate possible combinations. My argument was that according to the chance theory, 4.5 ... 3.5 billion years ago no-one was conducting experiments, and the ingredients had no way of combining and transferring their energy except through unpredictable, unconscious elements. That was why I queried how you could accurately count the number of "attempts". But maybe I've misunderstood your answer. > -An "Attempt" in this case isn't a conscious thing, if it is nature. It still relies on "the right things being in the right place." The argument from Dembski and others against this is that there isn't enough time for "chance" to work out a solution. I'm challenging their claim by showing that their resolution of time isn't fine enough, as 1 "try" per second isn't enough when you consider the speed at which a chemical reaction actually happens. And just like with dice, the more attempts you have, the more chances you have to get it "right" by brute force. In short, Dembski (and others) either willingly or unwittingly skew their attempts when talking about time. Also misleading is the fact that the time we're talking about is only the "maximum" amount of time needed to guarantee a positive outcome. While you correctly nip chance arguments in the bud by stating we don't have a mechanism for life from nonlife, I'm also demonstrating another place where their model is incorrect for the given scenario, and trying to build one that IS. -> Let me really stick my neck out now, and try to sum up your hypothesis in my own layman's terms. If we knew the total number of particle combinations possible in our cosmos (which we don't), and if we knew the combination that led to life (which we don't), and if we knew what other combinations and conditions might also lead to different forms of life (which we don't), we would be able to calculate the number of "attempts" necessary to achieve a combination for life. If we divided the number of attempts necessary by the age of the universe at the time when we know life began (say 10 billion years?), we would be able to calculate the number of attempts necessary per second/minute/hour for chance to have created life (though we would have no way of knowing whether they took place). > -For 1: We have a good enough range, To make our case better, we'd use the smaller number, to make it more pessimistic, we'd use the larger one. -For 2: Once you have the total number of particles in a system, you can deterministically map all possible combinations. This is possible because of the computational nature of the cosmos, and the fact that matter/energy are finite. -For 3: We need this piece. -For 4: We know they took place, because we are here. If we crack 3, variations of 4 will give us better or worse answers as we find different ways to "make life." --> I apologize in advance if this is all wrong, and I fully acknowledge that I am a non-swimmer jumping in at the deep end, but the object is clarification, and I see no other way of getting it. I can only hope you'll find it of some use to explain your ideas so that even a non-scientist like me can follow them. If my summary is not wrong, though, aren't we still left, not with a solution but with a question of belief ... namely, whether chance could and did carry out the requisite number of "attempts" within the given time?-Perhaps, but with this we'd be in a much better position to judge.
--
\"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.\"
Origin of Life (Pt2)
by David Turell , Tuesday, December 29, 2009, 01:29 (5240 days ago) @ xeno6696
> > An "Attempt" in this case isn't a conscious thing, if it is nature. It still relies on "the right things being in the right place." The argument from Dembski and others against this is that there isn't enough time for "chance" to work out a solution. I'm challenging their claim by showing that their resolution of time isn't fine enough, as 1 "try" per second isn't enough when you consider the speed at which a chemical reaction actually happens. And just like with dice, the more attempts you have, the more chances you have to get it "right" by brute force. In short, Dembski (and others) either willingly or unwittingly skew their attempts when talking about time. -I'm going to stick my neck in again: Dembski does not use time. He calculates odds of choosing correct molecules to make life. Shroeder uses time. Shapiro has one time example, the other is an example of putting together a living organism, simpler than anything alive today, as odds of the molecules coming together, time not a requirement. Behe uses time in his discussion of malaria mutation resistence evolution, but the rest of his arguments are really philosophy of science. The Wistar Institute Symposium of 1967 was the first to raise the time issue, as the math participants studied the known mutation rates, and said the time was not available to allow for evolution. Of course they did not know what we know now: epigenetic methods, methylation, and recognized 'punctuated equilibrium', ways that speed up the process tremendously.-I suggest that Matt find the book "The Philosophic Scientists", 1985, by David Foster, Ph.D.. He follows up on Sir Arthur Eddington's proposal that'the stuff of the world is mind stuff', and uses statistics to show that the specificity of human hemoglobin is 10^650. and that the specificity of the T4 phage is 10^78,000. Human DNA specificity is correspondingly much, much larger. Foster does use time with the universe 10^18 seconds old. -Further most chemcical reactions in organic chemistry require enzymes and most of them are huge in molecular weight (with enormous specificity) with sites that provide for the reactions on the enzyme molecule. -Matt's approach is one way of going at things, but what I have described above is a lot more practical than studying the entire universe. One does not need that approach to to reach some solid conclusions, in my view.
Origin of Life (Pt2)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, December 29, 2009, 02:39 (5240 days ago) @ David Turell
> > > > An "Attempt" in this case isn't a conscious thing, if it is nature. It still relies on "the right things being in the right place." The argument from Dembski and others against this is that there isn't enough time for "chance" to work out a solution. I'm challenging their claim by showing that their resolution of time isn't fine enough, as 1 "try" per second isn't enough when you consider the speed at which a chemical reaction actually happens. And just like with dice, the more attempts you have, the more chances you have to get it "right" by brute force. In short, Dembski (and others) either willingly or unwittingly skew their attempts when talking about time. > > I'm going to stick my neck in again: Dembski does not use time. He calculates odds of choosing correct molecules to make life. -Then by omitting time, Dembski's probability means absolutely nothing. -Shroeder uses time. Shapiro has one time example, the other is an example of putting together a living organism, simpler than anything alive today, as odds of the molecules coming together, time not a requirement. Behe uses time in his discussion of malaria mutation resistence evolution, but the rest of his arguments are really philosophy of science. The Wistar Institute Symposium of 1967 was the first to raise the time issue, as the math participants studied the known mutation rates, and said the time was not available to allow for evolution. Of course they did not know what we know now: epigenetic methods, methylation, and recognized 'punctuated equilibrium', ways that speed up the process tremendously. > > I suggest that Matt find the book "The Philosophic Scientists", 1985, by David Foster, Ph.D.. He follows up on Sir Arthur Eddington's proposal that'the stuff of the world is mind stuff', and uses statistics to show that the specificity of human hemoglobin is 10^650. and that the specificity of the T4 phage is 10^78,000. Human DNA specificity is correspondingly much, much larger. Foster does use time with the universe 10^18 seconds old. > -Be careful... too many books to read, lol. Which should I tackle first, Shapior or Foster?-> Further most chemcical reactions in organic chemistry require enzymes and most of them are huge in molecular weight (with enormous specificity) with sites that provide for the reactions on the enzyme molecule. > -This is true, but this goes back to what you called a good point of mine before: Everything we can study here is the result of 4.5M yrs of evolution. The chemistry needed to form life from nonlife is some odd combination of inorganic and organic... and lets be honest, the research in this field is damn near nonexistent. Perhaps because chemists think its a biological problem, and biologists think its a chemical one. Massimo Pigliucci--and evolutionary biologist--flat out stated that it isn't a question of concern for biology, to paraphrase "because evolution only works when describing life." -At any rate, my point is just to say that of what little there is to say about this topic, it's probably the most pressing and important question that surrounds mankind, and it spins its wheels in frustration. Instead of trying to work with what we *suppose* life had available to it 4.5Bn years ago, we need to actually do whatever it takes to "make it happen." The reason this is such a sticking point between us, is simply that there are more questions than answers at present, and the only statement of complete truth one can say about it is that there isn't enough to say. -Of this, I am certain; quantum computers will allow us to really start finding an answer to this problem. - > Matt's approach is one way of going at things, but what I have described above is a lot more practical than studying the entire universe. One does not need that approach to to reach some solid conclusions, in my view.-What could be more practical than building a quantum computer capable of running these kinds of simulations? This is from the mind of a computer guy however, so take that as it is.
--
\"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.\"
Origin of Life (Pt2)
by David Turell , Tuesday, December 29, 2009, 14:17 (5239 days ago) @ xeno6696
> Be careful... too many books to read, lol. Which should I tackle first, Shapior or Foster?-Shapiro first, certainly. > > Massimo Pigliucci--and evolutionary biologist--flat out stated that it isn't a question of concern for biology, to paraphrase "because evolution only works when describing life." -Right. Life comes only from life is our only experience. > > What could be more practical than building a quantum computer capable of running these kinds of simulations? This is from the mind of a computer guy however, so take that as it is.-I'll give you the quantum computer. Then what? We have no idea what to put into it to start a program to study the origin of life. Your computer will have to run 800 million years, subtrating 4.5 billion, start of earth, to 3.7 billion, start of life, to discover the chance processes that came by. You will be studying 10^80 atoms, or 10^88 protons. Perhaps I'm wrong about time required. How long do you think it will take?
Origin of Life (Pt2)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, December 29, 2009, 17:50 (5239 days ago) @ David Turell
> > Be careful... too many books to read, lol. Which should I tackle first, Shapior or Foster? > > Shapiro first, certainly. > > > > Massimo Pigliucci--and evolutionary biologist--flat out stated that it isn't a question of concern for biology, to paraphrase "because evolution only works when describing life." > > Right. Life comes only from life is our only experience. > > > > What could be more practical than building a quantum computer capable of running these kinds of simulations? This is from the mind of a computer guy however, so take that as it is. > > I'll give you the quantum computer. Then what? We have no idea what to put into it to start a program to study the origin of life. Your computer will have to run 800 million years, subtrating 4.5 billion, start of earth, to 3.7 billion, start of life, to discover the chance processes that came by. You will be studying 10^80 atoms, or 10^88 protons. Perhaps I'm wrong about time required. How long do you think it will take?-You clearly don't understand the power Quantum computing delivers; no offense. -Why will quantum computing render all current cryptography obsolete? Because modern RSA keys require large prime numbers, the largest known complete factorization was a key that was 2^663 bits long, which factors to about 10^21. This certainly didn't take 10^21 years to accomplish, and this was done with standard digital computers. It was done on a supercomputing cluster that would take a 2.2Ghz opteron (your home Desktop PC) 75 years to find a solution for. The source number was 200 digits long--10^200, more than twice the total number of particles in the cosmos. -A quantum computer would factor this at the speed of light, and it is THAT fact that has chemists (especially in pharmaceuticals) foaming and drooling at the mouth. The difference is that although we can model quantum systems digitally, it's a translational process--standard computer logic likes 0's and 1's, not 0's, 1's, and BOTH 1 and 0 at the same time. It is that last part that keeps us from fully modeling quantum physics on digital machines. It takes alot more processing power to handle the probabilistic nature of quantum physics--but photons do it naturally, thus the intense draw towards building such a wonderful device. -It is also this fact that has even some biochemists here at UNO stating that biochemical complexity is going to be solved by mathematicians and physicists, not by biochemists. (Hence the work already underway on our cluster.)
--
\"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.\"
Origin of Life (Pt2)
by David Turell , Tuesday, December 29, 2009, 20:36 (5239 days ago) @ xeno6696
> It is also this fact that has even some biochemists here at UNO stating that biochemical complexity is going to be solved by mathematicians and physicists, not by biochemists. (Hence the work already underway on our cluster.)-Your description sounds great.
Origin of Life (Pt2)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, December 29, 2009, 23:23 (5239 days ago) @ David Turell
> > It is also this fact that has even some biochemists here at UNO stating that biochemical complexity is going to be solved by mathematicians and physicists, not by biochemists. (Hence the work already underway on our cluster.) > > Your description sounds great.-I omitted how much time I think it would take. -This is a big assumption I'm about to make: If Moore's law holds for quantum computing as it does with our current models, then every 18 months the power and cost of quantum technology should double and halve respectively. Right now the best quantum computer in the lab was recently able to factor every prime up to the number 15 before losing stability. If it doubles every 18 months then it will follow an exponential growth. Most of the algorithms we need to study the chemistry already exist: Human's have been doing them for close to 60-70 years. -I'm lazy, but we're at 2^4 right now. Every 18 months you add another to the exponent, so 2^5, 3yrs from now 2^6. This means that the complexity of what we can compute with it increases at the same rate. I'd say we'd be able to start getting meaningful results in chemistry in 30yrs. (Maybe earlier, if we learn better ways to manipulate quantum chips.)-In short, we're on the verge of a scientific revolution in information processing, and it's going to be even bigger than digital computing. It's Ray Kurzweil's singularity.
--
\"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.\"
Origin of Life (Pt2)
by David Turell , Wednesday, December 30, 2009, 01:24 (5239 days ago) @ xeno6696
>I omitted how much time I think it would take. I'd say we'd be able to start getting meaningful results in chemistry in 30yrs. (Maybe earlier, if we learn better ways to manipulate quantum chips.) > > In short, we're on the verge of a scientific revolution in information processing, and it's going to be even bigger than digital computing. It's Ray Kurzweil's singularity. -I can't wait that long. I'll use my authors and methods for now.
)
Origin of Life (Pt2)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, December 30, 2009, 03:37 (5239 days ago) @ David Turell
> >I omitted how much time I think it would take. > I'd say we'd be able to start getting meaningful results in chemistry in 30yrs. (Maybe earlier, if we learn better ways to manipulate quantum chips.) > > > > In short, we're on the verge of a scientific revolution in information processing, and it's going to be even bigger than digital computing. It's Ray Kurzweil's singularity. > > I can't wait that long. I'll use my authors and methods for now.
--
\"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.\"
Origin of Life (Pt2)
by David Turell , Wednesday, December 30, 2009, 05:39 (5239 days ago) @ xeno6696
> In jest
o you collect this stuff, or where do you find it? Each quote is great. Haven't heard any of them.
Origin of Life (Pt2)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, December 30, 2009, 17:22 (5238 days ago) @ David Turell
> > In jest: > > Do you collect this stuff, or where do you find it? Each quote is great. Haven't heard any of them.-Some quotes (Gluckman, Kierkegaard, and Twain) I just commit to memory when I read them. For the others--I'm no magician so there are no secrets: brainyquotes.com is a huge source, and often Google, when I am clueless. For the other ones I pulled, I googled both "science quotes" and "patience quotes" and scanned a few pages for ones I liked. -oh, thinkexist.com is a source for some really, really abstract quotes. (Gotta love the collective intelligence that is the web!)
--
\"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.\"
Origin of Life (Pt2)
I asked Matt a number of questions concerning his system, and again I greatly appreciate the detailed and extremely helpful responses. My thanks also to David for his intervention in the discussion, as I'm in no position to cope with the scientific implications (maybe I will be after reading Chad Orzel's book). It's clear, Matt, that once more we're in agreement as regards the current situation: we simply don't have enough information to make a judgement. There are just a couple of additional comments I'd like to make.-I argued that we have no way of knowing whether the "attempts" took place, and you responded that we know they took place because we're here. That wasn't quite what I meant. It's true, of course, that we're here, but your system will only tell us how many attempts would be hypothetically necessary for chance to create life. A designer might have waited till conditions were right, and then put together his first self-replicating molecule at the first/hundredth/ millionth/billionth attempt. In other words, your system will be confined to calculating the odds for and against chance, and will not be able to tell us whether it actually happened in that fashion. We may, as you say, "be in a much better position to judge", but ultimately we shall still have to rely on "soft and squishy" faith either way.-As regards the Big Bang, I have to accept that it happened, but I do not have to accept that it was from nothing. The belief that the universe, not to mention the laws of physics that enable it to survive, could assemble itself by chance out of nothing seems to me on a par with belief in the chance assembly of the ingredients for life, or in the eternal existence of an infinite consciousness. -Finally, let me quote David's apt response to your comment that "we're on the verge of a scientific revolution in information processing". He says "I can't wait that long. I'll use my authors and methods for now." Those of us sitting on the end of the bench will certainly drop off before your system can come into operation, so like every generation we can only base our beliefs/non-beliefs on the current state of knowledge. You wrote earlier that "from what we currently know from chemistry, it seems preposterous that life came about." Based on what we currently know from physics, would it be fair to say it seems preposterous that the universe came about? From these preposterous premises, I would suggest that it's also preposterous at this time to draw any hard and fast conclusions concerning chance v. design. I know you agree. -As a postscript, let me add to your delightful list of quotes: "Although this may seem a paradox, all exact science is dominated by the idea of approximation. When a man tells you that he knows the exact truth about anything, you are safe in inferring that he is an inexact man." Bertrand Russell- "It is a good morning exercise for a research scientist to discard a pet hypothesis every day before breakfast." Konrad Lorenz- "Science becomes dangerous only when it imagines that it has reached its goal." George Bernard Shaw-"I have no more faith in men of science being infallible than I have in men of God being infallible, principally on account of them being men." Noël Coward-"All progress is based upon a universal innate desire on the part of every organism to live beyond its income." Samuel Butler-And my own favourite: "Basic research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing." Werner von Braun
Origin of Life (Pt2)
by David Turell , Wednesday, December 30, 2009, 14:27 (5238 days ago) @ dhw
edited by unknown, Wednesday, December 30, 2009, 14:42
> "Although this may seem a paradox, all exact science is dominated by the idea of approximation. When a man tells you that he knows the exact truth about anything, you are safe in inferring that he is an inexact man." Bertrand Russell > > "It is a good morning exercise for a research scientist to discard a pet hypothesis every day before breakfast." Konrad Lorenz > > "Science becomes dangerous only when it imagines that it has reached its goal." George Bernard Shaw- Apropos of the above quotes is to remember the bombastic certainty of Dawkins and the evolution of whales from land animals, presented here awhile ago. I know George grinds his teeth every time I enter something from Uncommon Descent but this review of whale evolution is well researched with many cogent entries from the accepted peer-reviewed bunch:-http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/whale-evolution-darwinist-trawlers-have-every-reason-to-be-concerned/#more-11035-And I can add a pithy quote of my own: "Theoretical science is always uncertain science". David Turell
Origin of Life (Pt2)
by George Jelliss 
, Crewe, Wednesday, December 30, 2009, 15:35 (5238 days ago) @ David Turell
Since DT mentions me in passing I thought I'd respond.-I've more or less given up following all the posts that DT makes that give links to work on biology and evolution, since they are mostly perfectly valid work-in-progress. Inevitably there are many alternative hypotheses put forward, and rival research teams enthuse over their own ideas. This is the way science is done these days. Eventually as more evidence is accumulated a clearer picture will emerge. -The so-called "Discovery Institute" of course seizes on anything it can find to claim as a case of "irreducible complexity" or evolutionary impossibility. In this case we have: Quote: Although each species emits sound signals that resemble signals of other species, the animals never mistake the sounds for those of other species...Harmony between sounds and sound-receiving organs likewise presupposes the...requirement of simultaneous appearance, while excluding the possibility of gradual evolution.-This seems to me to be an exceedingly weak argument. Do they also apply it to birds? Do they apply it to humans and other apes? I would have thought the sounds that animals make could quite easily evolve gradually, and their ears likewise. If an animal is born with poor hearing it will obviously be more vulnerable to getting lost, and thus picked off by predators, leaving thjose with acute hearing to breed. Pretty basic natural selection.
--
GPJ
Origin of Life (Pt2)
by David Turell , Wednesday, December 30, 2009, 20:54 (5238 days ago) @ George Jelliss
> I've more or less given up following all the posts that DT makes that give links to work on biology and evolution, since they are mostly perfectly valid work-in-progress. Inevitably there are many alternative hypotheses put forward, and rival research teams enthuse over their own ideas. This is the way science is done these days. Eventually as more evidence is accumulated a clearer picture will emerge.-Part of the problem you describe is the sensationalism required in today's newsmongers. With TV, print papers, and 24-hour news channels and the internet blogs, etc. everyone is vying to sell their story. Remember the IDA fossil hysteria. I post these findings because I have time to hunt them up and I think many of them do provoke discussion. > > Quote: Although each species emits sound signals that resemble signals of other species, the animals never mistake the sounds for those of other species...Harmony between sounds and sound-receiving organs likewise presupposes the...requirement of simultaneous appearance, while excluding the possibility of gradual evolution. > > This seems to me to be an exceedingly weak argument. Do they also apply it to birds? Do they apply it to humans and other apes? I would have thought the sounds that animals make could quite easily evolve gradually, and their ears likewise. -You are making the Darwinian assumption of gradualism in development. If you note my other recent entry, there is much less gradualism than originally proposed. In that view their argument has a point.
Origin of Life (Pt2)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, December 30, 2009, 21:58 (5238 days ago) @ David Turell
> > I've more or less given up following all the posts that DT makes that give links to work on biology and evolution, since they are mostly perfectly valid work-in-progress. Inevitably there are many alternative hypotheses put forward, and rival research teams enthuse over their own ideas. This is the way science is done these days. Eventually as more evidence is accumulated a clearer picture will emerge. > > Part of the problem you describe is the sensationalism required in today's newsmongers. With TV, print papers, and 24-hour news channels and the internet blogs, etc. everyone is vying to sell their story. Remember the IDA fossil hysteria. I post these findings because I have time to hunt them up and I think many of them do provoke discussion. > > > > Quote: Although each species emits sound signals that resemble signals of other species, the animals never mistake the sounds for those of other species...Harmony between sounds and sound-receiving organs likewise presupposes the...requirement of simultaneous appearance, while excluding the possibility of gradual evolution. > > > > This seems to me to be an exceedingly weak argument. Do they also apply it to birds? Do they apply it to humans and other apes? I would have thought the sounds that animals make could quite easily evolve gradually, and their ears likewise. > > You are making the Darwinian assumption of gradualism in development. If you note my other recent entry, there is much less gradualism than originally proposed. In that view their argument has a point.-I actually side with David on this: Punctuated Equilibrium was an attempt by Stephen Jay Gould to explain why evolution sometimes moves at a breakneck pace. I admit to being hostile to David's ideas at first in regards to a deeper (and I'm not talking mystical) mechanism that helps drive change. But I agree that Natural Selection is too passive; I don't think it describes *enough* in terms of change and that some deeper mechanism must be at work. Eukaryotes aren't as subject to random mutations as bacteria are due to sexual reproduction, and sexual reproduction itself doesn't guarantee that a beneficial trait WILL be carried on to the next Gen.
--
\"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.\"
Origin of Life (Pt2)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, December 30, 2009, 17:37 (5238 days ago) @ David Turell
edited by unknown, Wednesday, December 30, 2009, 17:43
Davd & dhw,-> > > > "Although this may seem a paradox, all exact science is dominated by the idea of approximation. When a man tells you that he knows the exact truth about anything, you are safe in inferring that he is an inexact man." Bertrand Russell > > > > "It is a good morning exercise for a research scientist to discard a pet hypothesis every day before breakfast." Konrad Lorenz > > > > "Science becomes dangerous only when it imagines that it has reached its goal." George Bernard Shaw > > > Apropos of the above quotes is to remember the bombastic certainty of Dawkins and the evolution of whales from land animals, presented here awhile ago. I know George grinds his teeth every time I enter something from Uncommon Descent but this review of whale evolution is well researched with many cogent entries from the accepted peer-reviewed bunch: > > http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/whale-evolution-darwinist-trawlers-ha... > And I can add a pithy quote of my own: "Theoretical science is always uncertain science". David Turell-It was exactly the "exactness" of surety that people like Dawkins professed that made me deeply question the heretical (to atheists) notion that atheism is a faith. It was a difficult--very difficult--notion to face, but when we're talking about a universe built on inference, it is a fact that the further away [EDIT] you reason FROM fact the less certain one can be--by nature. Add to that the fact that science--however useful--is a system of building models, and just because a model fits incredibly well by no means guarantees that it IS the correct model. Actually Stenger's general idea of Physics as a descriptive language directly weakens any attempt to posit scientific inferences as actual fact. -All scientific data still requires interpretation, and because we don't have direct access to what really happened, science will always be a great blob of uncertainties built upon precious few truths. -This is what made me tolerant of religion, after having spent the greater portion of my life hating it to the point of racism. While to a greater or lesser extent you can judge the validity of a religion by the degree it denies truth for faith, the same thing can be said of those people that adopt science as a belief system instead of what it actually is--a tool. -I'm beginning to see that some postmodern criticisms of science actually have some merit.-[EDIT] What drives me in this search? The ancient drive for truth. If I hold one virtue dear, it is that I hold truth above all else--in as many things as possible. Nietzsche once wrote that a man should only try to master one virtue, and the one that I had chosen well before that was truth. So, when I question aggressively, or seem to act the fool, it is in some way related to trying to get to THAT goal, and I greatly sense that dhw is in exactly the same place. I see the inferences and recognize them as inferences and not bona-fide fact. This prevents me from making a great many decisions that many other people take for granted.
--
\"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.\"
Origin of Life (Pt2)
by BBella , Thursday, December 31, 2009, 09:30 (5237 days ago) @ xeno6696
What drives me in this search? The ancient drive for truth. If I hold one virtue dear, it is that I hold truth above all else--in as many things as possible. Nietzsche once wrote that a man should only try to master one virtue, and the one that I had chosen well before that was truth. - I had to finally give up the pursuit of truth (the big T) not that many years ago and replace it with trust as my one virtue to master. It has already paid off many times over...something truth never did. Truth is fine when you are young and have the belief "it's out there"...but eventually it wears you down and you have to replace it for something more suited for your speed.-bb
Origin of Life (Pt2)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, December 31, 2009, 16:06 (5237 days ago) @ BBella
BBella AND David,-> > What drives me in this search? The ancient drive for truth. If I hold one virtue dear, it is that I hold truth above all else--in as many things as possible. Nietzsche once wrote that a man should only try to master one virtue, and the one that I had chosen well before that was truth. > > > I had to finally give up the pursuit of truth (the big T) not that many years ago and replace it with trust as my one virtue to master. It has already paid off many times over...something truth never did. Truth is fine when you are young and have the belief "it's out there"...but eventually it wears you down and you have to replace it for something more suited for your speed. > > bb-As politely as I can possibly say this, it sounds to me that in both cases, there is a sacrifice of truth for convenience; the human brain likes things to be solved. It wants to worry about other things. I AM NOT trying to be rude in this observation, but sometimes I admit to just not knowing the right tact. Both David's and BBella's comments resolve to my ears as "giving up the game." -In my own case, my path is that of a computer scientist/mathematician. I have all the patience in the world for truth, because as far as what I'll be doing for the rest of my life, truth is it. And by that I mean simply that both programming and math are very clear and require "true" or "false." I understand that both of you are at different points in your lives, but this... drive for me I've always recognized as something that has been with me. -But did I train myself, or did my brain train me? I don't see myself as getting worn down or in David's case, needing to make a decision before he leaves the world. -What is clear to me, is that my time spent with Nietzsche trained me to accept certain things exactly as they are. If something is clearly not solved yet, then it is unsolved. If it is unsolved, we shouldn't make a claim that assumes it is, else we serve only ourselves and not the greater cause of mankind. -Respectfully, Matt
--
\"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.\"
Origin of Life (Pt2)
Matt: All scientific data still requires interpretation, and because we don't have direct access to what really happened, science will always be a great blob of uncertainties built upon precious few truths. That is what made me tolerant of religion....-Agreed, as usual. I'm tempted to reverse the idea for religion, and say that it's a great blob of truths built on uncertain foundations. Religions have always been effective because they appeal to the almost universal human desire for explanations, reliable social and moral frameworks, and meaning in life. If you take them all as systems of symbols, they do have a truth of their own, not least because of their similarities. But if you take them as literal truths, their ground becomes very shaky, not least because of their differences. Like you, Matt, I have the deepest respect for those whose religious faith brings them comfort and leads them to help others. People who denigrate religion en bloc sicken me. As with many such prejudices, their arguments have enough truth at their core to make them seem convincing ... I don't think any reasonably objective observer would dispute that religion has done a great deal of harm ... but their lack of balance makes them as irrational as the religious fundamentalists they attack. -Matt: Nietzsche once wrote that a man should only try to master one virtue, and the one that I had chosen well before that was truth.-BBella: I had to finally give up on the pursuit of truth (the big T) not that many years ago and replace it with trust as my one virtue to master.-Sorry, folks, but I disagree with Nietzsche. I can't imagine for one minute, Matt, that you would slaughter a hundred innocents, and argue that this was justified because you are pursuing truth not human happiness. And dear BBella, while I recognize only too well both your wisdom and your world-weariness concerning the quest for Truth, I can't help feeling that trust requires discernment: I can understand your trusting a UI, messages from the heart, intuition, but not, for instance, politicians, priests, scientists! Zarathiswriter reckons a man and a woman should try to master as many virtues as possible, including kindness, fairness, tolerance, unselfishness, truthfulness, conscientiousness, trustworthiness...need I go on? Mastering one virtue shouldn't detract in the slightest from our attempts to practise others. (Sorry if that sounds sanctimonious.) -However, Matt writes: "...when I question aggressively, or seem to act the fool, it is in some way related to trying to get to THAT goal" [i.e. truth]. Oh yes, Matt, I'm with you on all counts, including having a laugh on the way. BBella may well be right that the pursuit of truth eventually wears you down, and her extraordinary experiences provide living proof of the benefits of faith, but I think she has found her truth in her trust and doesn't need to continue the quest. BBella, do correct me if I'm wrong.-Happy New Year to one and all.
Origin of Life (Pt2)
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, December 31, 2009, 16:26 (5237 days ago) @ dhw
Matt: All scientific data still requires interpretation, and because we don't have direct access to what really happened, science will always be a great blob of uncertainties built upon precious few truths. > That is what made me tolerant of religion.... > > Agreed, as usual. I'm tempted to reverse the idea for religion, and say that it's a great blob of truths built on uncertain foundations. Religions have always been effective because they appeal to the almost universal human desire for explanations, reliable social and moral frameworks, and meaning in life. If you take them all as systems of symbols, they do have a truth of their own, not least because of their similarities. But if you take them as literal truths, their ground becomes very shaky, not least because of their differences. Like you, Matt, I have the deepest respect for those whose religious faith brings them comfort and leads them to help others. People who denigrate religion en bloc sicken me. As with many such prejudices, their arguments have enough truth at their core to make them seem convincing ... I don't think any reasonably objective observer would dispute that religion has done a great deal of harm ... but their lack of balance makes them as irrational as the religious fundamentalists they attack. > > Matt: Nietzsche once wrote that a man should only try to master one virtue, and the one that I had chosen well before that was truth. > > BBella: I had to finally give up on the pursuit of truth (the big T) not that many years ago and replace it with trust as my one virtue to master. > > Sorry, folks, but I disagree with Nietzsche. I can't imagine for one minute, Matt, that you would slaughter a hundred innocents, and argue that this was justified because you are pursuing truth not human happiness. And dear BBella, while I recognize only too well both your wisdom and your world-weariness concerning the quest for Truth, I can't help feeling that trust requires discernment: I can understand your trusting a UI, messages from the heart, intuition, but not, for instance, politicians, priests, scientists! Zarathiswriter reckons a man and a woman should try to master as many virtues as possible, including kindness, fairness, tolerance, unselfishness, truthfulness, conscientiousness, trustworthiness...need I go on? Mastering one virtue shouldn't detract in the slightest from our attempts to practise others. (Sorry if that sounds sanctimonious.) >-Well, I think you take him a little too directly at his meaning. He was writing in response to general Lutheran and Catholic Dogma that gives man a list of hundreds of virtues that "one must master." When you couple that with my Buddhist training, of course I'm going to agree with that. N wasn't saying that we should stop being or doing these other things, but that Man's greatest weakness is in *concentrating* in shallow waters. -A human being is by nature very very bad at multitasking. If there's one virtue for you to be as faithful to as possible, then you will reap much greater rewards. Why is this? Because it forces you to master patience and discipline. The Ascetic nature of religions help people realize things that they do not need. -A common Chinese and Japanese criticism of Western culture, is that no one accepts what they do; a waiter doesn't want to be a waiter. A Banker wants to be a politician, and in general, everyone wants to be or do something or somebody else. If each person spent time being the best waiter they can be, or the best banker--other things will naturally follow. Discipline is the key to all ascetic thought, and I'll always side a little more with stoics than epicureans. (Though Lucretius's philosophy on building and maintaining friends stands the test of time.) -Some of the things you discuss, are all virtues that people exercise, what I'm talking about is the degree. One cannot master both truth and kindness, because sometimes its more kind to tell a lie. Your other question resolves around the pursuit of truth at the expense of others: Truth serves people as ends and not means. Therefore it isn't right to pursue truth at the expense of other people, but one can hardly say that this is a question that a child wouldn't answer in the same way: It's something I do but I'm no master of ethics. -> However, Matt writes: "...when I question aggressively, or seem to act the fool, it is in some way related to trying to get to THAT goal" [i.e. truth]. Oh yes, Matt, I'm with you on all counts, including having a laugh on the way. BBella may well be right that the pursuit of truth eventually wears you down, and her extraordinary experiences provide living proof of the benefits of faith, but I think she has found her truth in her trust and doesn't need to continue the quest. BBella, do correct me if I'm wrong. > > Happy New Year to one and all.-And Happy New Year to you as well!
--
\"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.\"
Origin of Life (Pt2)
by BBella , Thursday, December 31, 2009, 22:35 (5237 days ago) @ dhw
> Matt: Nietzsche once wrote that a man should only try to master one virtue, and the one that I had chosen well before that was truth. > > BBella: I had to finally give up on the pursuit of truth (the big T) not that many years ago and replace it with trust as my one virtue to master. > > And dear BBella, while I recognize only too well both your wisdom and your world-weariness concerning the quest for Truth, I can't help feeling that trust requires discernment: I can understand your trusting a UI, messages from the heart, intuition, but not, for instance, politicians, priests, scientists! -I do trust everything that IS..in the moment! I might not like it...but I trust it. If something IS I trust it IS for a reason or purpose, one that I may not fathom or understand, but for a purpose that fits in with the framework of the ALL. This does not mean I trust anyone at anytime to do the "right" thing..I trust that whatever choices are made are made for an ultimate purpose I may not see. Trust is a moment to moment decision I have to make for myself. Trust does not have to be passive...even if I defend myself from an attack, at some point, I will have to make the choice to trust it happened for a reason. If politicians or scientist choose this or that, and I don't believe in their choice, I will at some point decide to accept the results of their choices happened for a purpose....this will not stop me from trying to change the effects of their choices. Again, I do not see trust as passive...but a choice I have to make in the moment to accept all that has happened in the past to this moment happened for some ultimate purpose, even if that purpose is only for my eyes only! This is so I can move on to the next moment with historical knowledge but no baggage of what if's, guilt, or regrets. These emotions I found were the heaviest for me to carry and weighed my life down to a point of death, and trust has been my only trustworthy tool to relieve my mind and body of the weight of these emotions. ->Zarathiswriter reckons a man and a woman should try to master as many virtues as possible, including kindness, fairness, tolerance, unselfishness, truthfulness, conscientiousness, trustworthiness...need I go on? Mastering one virtue shouldn't detract in the slightest from our attempts to practise others. (Sorry if that sounds sanctimonious.)-I completely agree! But, all of the above virtues could not relieve me of my painful mental burdens...trust was able, which is why I value it so highly. - > However, Matt writes: "...when I question aggressively, or seem to act the fool, it is in some way related to trying to get to THAT goal" [i.e. truth]. Oh yes, Matt, I'm with you on all counts, including having a laugh on the way. BBella may well be right that the pursuit of truth eventually wears you down, and her extraordinary experiences provide living proof of the benefits of faith, but I think she has found her truth in her trust and doesn't need to continue the quest. BBella, do correct me if I'm wrong.-By George,I think you have me there! That's one I didn't see coming. You are right, I have found my big T!!! Thanks for that! -> Happy New Year to one and all. -May everyones New Year be blessed with all good things and with a trust for the not so good ones!!!