0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: larens on 23/05/2020 23:16:54If I used your philosophy, all I could do at the beginning was to wail, "I can't proceed! I don't have the final results!"That's a straw-man. I never said you couldn't proceed. By all means, proceed and do tests. That wasn't my contention. My contention is with you calling it "successful".
If I used your philosophy, all I could do at the beginning was to wail, "I can't proceed! I don't have the final results!"
Why are you nitpicking?
The taking of a test with a sufficient score meeting the goals of the test's creator is called successful. Technically the test may be an abstract set of specifications. Even those are successful if the results are consistent with what the creator wanted to measure.
Quote from: larens on 24/05/2020 00:51:47Why are you nitpicking?Because you are unjustifiably sure of yourself.
You have an extremely specific design for a spring on an object that no one has ever seen before. And you don't know that it can give rise to life (that would have required you to have figured out the step-by-step process required to go from inanimate chemicals to a living cell).
On top of that, there is no way to falsify the existence of your spring because we can't go back and look at your hypothetical satellite to see if this spring ever existed or not. If something isn't falsifiable, it isn't science.
If you are the one taking the test, then who is the test's creator?
How would you know? I have posted only a small amount of my research, because people have shown so little interest in detail.
You have no skin in the game.
You cannot as an outsider just set arbitrarily high demands.
Science is a competition. Setting aside differences in social/political power, when one side has explained far more basic questions than any of the others they are taken to be the leading contender.
That was Popper's viewpoint, but the philosophy of science has moved on.
I am, of course. I am the only one capable of making the tests. No one else has learned the details of the model well enough.
Consider that the entire Solar system was set up to be a place for life to originate.
Why are you nitpicking? The taking of a test with a sufficient score meeting the goals of the test's creator is called successful.
Quote from: larens on 24/05/2020 00:23:53Consider that the entire Solar system was set up to be a place for life to originate. By whom?
Quote from: larens on 24/05/2020 00:51:47Why are you nitpicking? The taking of a test with a sufficient score meeting the goals of the test's creator is called successful.If the creator of the test says "it doesn't matter that the bit about titanocene is impossible- the idea still works" then the "goal" is set so easy as to be pointless.
By the collective consciousness that wants us to use physical reality as a medium of communication to be in community.
Quote from: larens on 24/05/2020 18:16:52By the collective consciousness that wants us to use physical reality as a medium of communication to be in community.How do I distinguish this consciousness before there was life from the good old "Goddidit" model?
Quote from: larens on 24/05/2020 02:58:09How would you know? I have posted only a small amount of my research, because people have shown so little interest in detail.My assessment is, of course, based on what you've posted.
Quote from: larens on 24/05/2020 02:58:09You have no skin in the game.I'm not familiar with this phrase.
Quote from: larens on 24/05/2020 02:58:09You cannot as an outsider just set arbitrarily high demands.Other than yourself, who isn't an outsider?
Quote from: larens on 24/05/2020 02:58:09Science is a competition. Setting aside differences in social/political power, when one side has explained far more basic questions than any of the others they are taken to be the leading contender. Only if the explanation for the questions is correct.
Quote from: larens on 24/05/2020 02:58:09That was Popper's viewpoint, but the philosophy of science has moved on.Do you have a reference for this? What year did this switch happen?
Quote from: larens on 24/05/2020 02:58:09I am, of course. I am the only one capable of making the tests. No one else has learned the details of the model well enough.And thus you have completely invalidated your claim to having been successful. Anyone can pass a test that they wrote themself.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 24/05/2020 18:39:01Quote from: larens on 24/05/2020 18:16:52By the collective consciousness that wants us to use physical reality as a medium of communication to be in community.How do I distinguish this consciousness before there was life from the good old "Goddidit" model?God can cast you into eternal damnation if you do not worship him. Collective consciousness can be friendly. Try South Asian religion if you do not like this polarized characterization.
Water is the majority component of life on earth. Therefore, life on earth, at all scales, evolved with water as a majority chemical component. Water was the nano-environment, which defined the physical chemical parameters, used for the natural selection of the organic and ionic chemicals, that led to life. The first two claims are self evident.
How can you leave out water and be called pure?
Quote from: larens on 24/05/2020 20:14:53Quote from: Bored chemist on 24/05/2020 18:39:01Quote from: larens on 24/05/2020 18:16:52By the collective consciousness that wants us to use physical reality as a medium of communication to be in community.How do I distinguish this consciousness before there was life from the good old "Goddidit" model?God can cast you into eternal damnation if you do not worship him. Collective consciousness can be friendly. Try South Asian religion if you do not like this polarized characterization.So, they are the same thing really. You just invented a ratehr longwinded pantheism.
My approach has always been to accept that the universe formed in a certain way as defined by science observation. However, I also assume that the beginning already had the future in mind.
Fine, but until you can evince it, that's wishful thinking, not science.
In the 1950's, it was discovered, by pure science observations; no bias, that proteins fold with exact folds. Like repeatable science experiments, protein fold the same way each time no matter who does the observing. Although this observation has been duplicated in the lab and is common knowledge for over 60 years, there is still no statistical explanation. The main theory cannot even explain this yet is remains.
However, I have found seams that can make things easier. Imagine an applied approach that only needs water to explain the parallel universe of the organics. Now we do it the other way around and water into the diversity of organics. But we could use one simple molecule; H2O, to simulate any organic in water since water will forma unique shell around any organic or organic surface. Modeling becomes an order of magnitude easier,