The Creation of Man

[Dmitri]

Re: The Creation of Man

?In the ordinary Intellegent Design and Panspermia theories, the puzzle of the origin of life remains unsolved. Only the origin of life on earth is explained. Dmitri wishes to explain the origin of life in the universe by utilizing a timeloop having no beginning or end, similar to the question that is at the heart of the grandfather paradox. My thinking is, if you are going to use some weird time loop that throws causation out the window, then what's your beef with evolution. It's a lot less weird.

Nice talking Harte,

The beef with evolution is that to accept it as creating new information and working per se we need this world somewhere where random change leads to increased complexity or minimized entropy. In this world we would not need to pay for lunch, we would just wait till it cooks and servers for us. I think it is more or less weird.

As to the grandfather paradox, I would argue that creation and redistribution of life in time does not produce it. It is close to what is called a predestination paradox or a causal loop. It exists when a time traveler is caught in a loop of events that "predestines" him to travel back in time. In the predestination paradox they say a time traveler impregnates this great-great grandmother and thus causes his later existence with the necessity to travel back in time in order to exist etc. This paradox seems in some way the opposite of the grandfather paradox, in which a time traveler's act prevents his own travel to the past by canceling his own existence. Igor Novikov self-consistency principle suggests that contradictory causal loops cannot form, but that consistent ones can. Here one can also dispute and say that causality is violated, but the case is weaker than in the grandfather paradox. Some people may say this contradicts free will. It is for reasonable will, I would argue. It may imply some convergence of the pasts, but it should not lead to a single trajectory. In the example with the time traveler and his great-great grandmother, another guy may have been more lucky in relations with the time-traveler?s ancestor, still the time traveler would be born anyway. Similarly, life could have been brought to earth from another source from future or present, or even several sources, it may indeed. Then life has multiple root ancestry. Causality in physics is weird anyway, but a free lunch world would be more weird.

 

[Dmitri]

Re: The Creation of Man

My point of view is that life and intelligence exist, without a need for a gradual evolutionary development or a need for an origination factor, other than origination of everything, which is a metaphysical issue. When a computer program runs in loops performing operation a then b then c then d and then back again to a and so on, there are no paradoxes, it just runs this way, so our world may behave similarly. A thing does not create itself de novo. However some advanced civilizations can create life in labs trying to reproduce and enhance themselves, and other living forms for aesthetical reasons. And they spread it all over different time space possibilities. What is wrong with this hypothesis? It does not support mechanistic causality of ?before? and ?after?? Cause comes first anyway, maybe not necessarily first in a linear time line manner; but this is not Newtonian world any more, right? I suggest physics here, not metaphysics. We can prove ID by comparing genomes and finding ?living fossils? of pertinent events. ET bacteria can be found, if not are being found already. If ID and directed development of life are to be proved soon, we face more common sense in biology and elsewhere. We could speculate more on reasons, intentions and foresee consequences. We could talk about it more; there would be a lot more interesting questions to talk about; and the century of the evolutionary nightmare would end. If we then speculate about ancestral roots vs horizontal gene transfer, we will see that recent genetic ?upgrades? may well overweigh our direct ancient ancestry. In which case Hawking?s chronology protection conjecture is not so important a defense. Our ancient chronology should not matter much compared to what our most recent ancestors and we have got while out here. I would call it something like merged ancestry, or cosmic ancestry for that matter. Harte, I think nobody will find the beginning of life scenarios since life is already here without more primitive pre cellular intermediates; they better quit looking for it as Orgel and Crick did. No RNA or protein soup. This is my beef with evolution.

 

[Dmitri]

Re: The Creation of Man

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Zoomerz\")</div>

Trying to portray man as just another component of universal matter is certainly contrary to Christian doctrine. Further, \"eternity after death\" is a manufactured destiny by orthodox Christianity (the post-Constantine era). Gnostic Christians definitely believed in reincarnation, which would be more consistent with \"universal energy\" principles. As for a purpose, I wouldn't even attempt to go there at this point in my knowledge. \"Insufficient data\"!! heh....

Anyway, thanks for your insights.

Z-[/b]

Zoomerz,

Exactly as you point out was the nature or my argument with a priest for a week or so on some basics of what humanity is and what its purpose may be. They do think we are unique in the Universe, as if we knew who we are or just wanted to pat ourselves; and the answers are as ready and indisputable as they are in our stupid biological science. I think biologists care less than priests though.

D

 

[Zoomerz]

Re: The Creation of Man

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Dmitri\")</div>

Zoomerz, ?
?
Exactly as you point out was the nature or my argument with a priest for a week or so on some basics of what humanity is and what its purpose may be. They do think we are unique in the Universe, as if we knew who we are or just wanted to pat ourselves; and the answers are as ready and indisputable as they are in our stupid biological science. I think biologists care less than priests though. ?
?
D[/b]

Dmitri; Sorry for taking so long to reply! I've been busy flying kites with the kids and skiing....

As I said, I wouldn't pretend to know what our purpose on earth might be. I think my entire life has reflected that. I've lived pretty much *experientially* rather than *purposefully*. In this regard, I truly do envy those that find a spiritual peace, and can truly believe in a god, and his purpose. May I someday find that kind of faith before I die.

Interestingly, since the 1800's LLoyds of London has held statistics (odds if you will) on the existence of other intelligent life in the universe. In fact, you could have purchased a "policy" from them in amounts up to $1 mil (don't quote me on the amount!) that we are unique, and alone. The initial odds when they first started issuing was over 1 billion -> 1 against.

Over the years, and up until last year's landing on Mars, the odds had steadily declined to just over 50.something -> 1. Almost immediately after the fossil-like impressions were found, they pulled the policy off the market entirely!

Anyway, how any of these scientists/statisticians can come up with accurate information is beyond me. In the end, we really still don't know if there is other intelligent life out there. We can surmise all we want, but we won't know until we know.

My personal *feeling* is that it would be illogical and arrogant to believe that we are unique, but I learned a long time ago that feelings (beliefs??) are not facts. Modern psychology confirms this.

So, while it is EXTREMELY interesting and thought provoking to debate the subject, in the end, we're left pretty much where we started.

By the way, Dmitri, the reason I haven't posted on this thread more is because I've become very much a student of what you and Harte and Starlord have been discussing. It has been great just kicking back and learning from you 3, so please continue the debate. I don't think I'm the only one here that would say this either.

Best Regards!
Z-

 

[Dmitri]

Re: The Creation of Man

So interesting to know, Zoomerz:

My life has got somewhat erratic last week or so. I am trying to come up with better terms for now. Quite unreasonably, I heard from my PI for the first time in my life that I may be replaced in about a year if significant results do not follow. My results so far have been ten times as good as the best in the world preparations for two difficult cell biology techniques. Then the line shifted to somewhat basics so far, still with a lot to disappoint you on the way, as usually. Here I am sure not the best in molecular bio, so I happen to hear a lot of cr.p nowadays as a foreign "dependant" or as if the best were working in our lab, and think of shopping for a job to get somewhere else in a year or so. I'll post more this week or two; I started reading Hoyle's "The Intelligent Universe". Thanks a lot for your insights,

DN

 

[Dmitri]

Re: The Creation of Man

I very much regret the death of Pope John Paul. http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/050403/w0403102.html

 

[Harte]

Re: The Creation of Man

My point of view is that life and intelligence exist, without a need for a gradual evolutionary development or a need for an origination factor, other than origination of everything, which is a metaphysical issue. When a computer program runs in loops performing operation a then b then c then d and then back again to a and so on, there are no paradoxes, it just runs this way, so our world may behave similarly. A thing does not create itself de novo. However some advanced civilizations can create life in labs trying to reproduce and enhance themselves, and other living forms for aesthetical reasons. And they spread it all over different time space possibilities. What is wrong with this hypothesis? It does not support mechanistic causality of ?before? and ?after?? Cause comes first anyway, maybe not necessarily first in a linear time line manner; but this is not Newtonian world any more, right? I suggest physics here, not metaphysics...

...Harte, I think nobody will find the beginning of life scenarios since life is already here without more primitive pre cellular intermediates; they better quit looking for it as Orgel and Crick did. No RNA or protein soup. This is my beef with evolution.

The beef with evolution is that to accept it as creating new information and working per se we need this world somewhere where random change leads to increased complexity or minimized entropy. In this world we would not need to pay for lunch, we would just wait till it cooks and servers for us. I think it is more or less weird.

By the way, Dmitri, the reason I haven't posted on this thread more is because I've become very much a student of what you and Harte and Starlord have been discussing. It has been great just kicking back and learning from you 3, so please continue the debate. I don't think I'm the only one here that would say this either.

Alright, I had given up but, bowing to Zoomerz, I think I can make another contribution.

Dmitri,

Your example above of the computer loop is not analogous to your assertion of life inventing itself. It is true that a program often loops from a to b to c to d then back to a. But there is always a first time that the program performs operation a.

When you say you are not suggesting metaphysics, but physics, what branch of physics are you referring to? As far as I am aware, there exists no branch of physics which allows causality to be thrown out the window.

I say again, your time loop hypothesis suggests something from nothing, or a thing that has (or will) create itself. The reason I ask what's your beef with evolution is that evolution also suggests something for nothing, a thing creating itself. But some evidence for evolution actually exists whereas not one iota of evidence exists that remotely suggests that life on earth created itself through the use of a closed loop in time. It seems to me that the apparent violation of entropy which you so abhor in evolution is present in your hypothesis in spades. Of course, you can always say that entropy doesn't apply in a time loop.

I want to make clear that my objections to your hypothesis have nothing to do with ID or Panspermia. Both of these theories could pan out. As I said before, though; neither ID nor Panspermia addresses the origin of life in the universe.

Lastly, in looking at some websites about evolution, I note that some biologists are surmising that early forms of DNA might have formed on the lattice-like structure of clay, which they presume was in suspension in the "primordial soup." I don't know if this has any real significance beyond the obvious coincidence. So now we have the big bang sounding a lot like "let there be light" and the possiblity that we came from clay or dirt after all, as Genesis indicates. Amusing.

 

[Zoomerz]

Re: The Creation of Man

Harte;

Your example above of the computer loop is not analogous to your assertion of life inventing itself. It is true that a program often loops from a to b to c to d then back to a. But there is always a first time that the program performs operation a.

As a programmer, I can affirm that every loop must have an "Initialization". That is, a loop is initialized with specific criteria, including conditional arguments, and under what conditions the loop ends. If no *ending* criteria is provided, we would call it an *infinite loop*. Therefore, a programatic loop might have no end, but must have a beginning.

example:

do (something) until { this condition exists; }

Z-

 

[Harte]

Re: The Creation of Man

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"Zoomerz\")</div>

Harte;
?
...If no *ending* criteria is provided, we would call it an *infinite loop*. Therefore, a programatic loop might have no end, but must have a beginning.

example:

do (something) until { this condition exists; }

Z-[/b]

Zoomerz,
Thanks for reiterating my statement in a technical way. We are disussing beginnings here.
H

 

[Zoomerz]

Re: The Creation of Man

Yes, that was my *confirmation*. That, while loops may be repetitive and endless, they MUST have a beginning. I totally agree with you that "throwing causality out the window" and thereby ignoring a beginning, is unacceptable.

I'll shut up now! heh....

Z-