"A Smaller, could not be perturbed
The Summer Gnat displays
Unconscious that his single Fleet
Do not comprise the skies"

~ E Dickinson

Is there life elsewhere in the Universe?
That's the wrong question since creation and
evolution are inherent to the universe
it's what the universe does first, best
and every chance it gets.

The question should be why do we feel like
we're alone in the universe, since the universe
itself is alive, and must be teeming with life.
It's difficult to see life elsewhere for the very
same reason the summer gnat has difficulty
perceiving us.

Every ecosystem is it's own mini-universe with
their own unique 'laws' and axioms. We must
learn our own natural laws and stop obsessing
over the microphysical laws all ecosystems share.
In a highly evolved system the part details are
largely irrelevant to the whole.

Since the...whole comes first, the...parts later.
Nature and reality are nothing like most believe
it's far simpler.

QUANTA MAGAZINE

There Are No Laws of Physics. There’s Only the Landscape.

Suppose Alice and Bob are both asked to prepare a meal.
Alice likes Chinese, Bob likes Italian. They each pick their
favorite recipe, shop at the local specialty store, and
carefully follow the instructions. But when they take their
dishes out of the oven, they are in for a big surprise.
The two meals turn out to be identical.

We can imagine the existential questions Alice and Bob
must ask themselves. How can different ingredients produce
the same dish?

This is exactly the perplexity experienced by quantum physicists.
They have found many examples of two completely different
descriptions of the same physical system. In the case of
physics, instead of meats and sauces, the ingredients are
particles and forces; the recipes are mathematical formulas
encoding the interactions; and the cooking process is the
quantization procedure that turns equations into the
probabilities of physical phenomena. Just like Alice and Bob,
quantum physicists wonder how different recipes lead to the
same outcomes.

Scientists seek a single description of reality. But
modern physics allows for many different descriptions, many
equivalent to one another, connected through a vast landscape
of mathematical possibility.

A more dramatic conclusion is that all traditional descriptions
of fundamental physics have to be thrown out. Particles, fields,
forces, symmetries — they are all just artifacts of a simple
existence at the outposts in this vast landscape of
impenetrable complexity.

Thinking of physics in terms of elementary building blocks appears
to be wrong, or at least of limited reach. Perhaps there is a
radical new framework uniting the fundamental laws of nature
that disregards all the familiar concepts. The mathematical
intricacies and consistencies of string theory are a strong
motivation for this dramatic point of view. But we have
to be honest. Very few current ideas about what replaces
particles and fields are “crazy enough to be true,” to quote
Niels Bohr. Like Alice and Bob, physics is ready to throw out
the old recipes and embrace a modern fusion cuisine.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/there-are-no-laws-of-physics-theres-only-the-landscape-20180604/

It's time to understand that all that exists flows from
a unified process of /evolution/. Even the fundamental
laws of physics evolves over time, which is the only
way to explain the cosmic coincidence problem, where
all the initial constants were initially set 'just right'
so that 15 billion years later the universe became ideal
for life.

The only way to explain that is that even the fundamental
constants and laws evolve over time so that they are
always 'just right' to create an ever more organized
or evolved universe.

The following statement can apply to any complex system
at all, whether the universe itself, life or even mind.

'Critically interacting systems self-organize to form
potentially evolving systems exhibiting a hierarchy
of emergent system properties.'

https://naturalorder.info/self-organizingsystems.html#1.3

Natural Order - Self-Organizing Systems FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions

Many natural systems show organization (e.g. galaxies, planets,
chemical compounds, cells, organisms and societies).
Traditional scientific fields attempt to explain these features
by referencing the micro properties or laws applicable to
their component parts, for example gravitation or chemical bonds.

Yet we can also approach the subject in a *very different way*,
looking instead for system properties applicable to all such
collections of parts, regardless of size or nature.
https://naturalorder.info/self-organizingsystems.html

ALL THINGS EVOLVE! Darwinian evolution is a special case
of a larger inherent universal process of evolution.
Complexity Science has placed that process in abstract form
allowing application to the universe, life and mind with
equal validity.

One idea for all, instead of the reductionist approach
of a thousand different disciplines that can't even
talk to each other in a common scientific language.

Makes all the difference as that abstract approach allows
us to see for the first time what *all in the universe*
*has in common* wrt their creation and evolution.

And that common creative process can be seen in a simple
passing cloud, or the Mona Lisa smile.

When the opposites in possibility are at transition point
between each other.

simple >>> The Complex Realm <<< simple

order >>> organization <<< disorder
static >>> Dynamic <<< chaotic

water >>> Cloud <<< vapor
gravity >>> Universe <<< cosmic expansion
rule of law >>> Democracy <<< freedom
genetics >>> Darwin <<< selection
facts >>> Ideas <<< imagination
science >>> Philosophy <<< religion

solid >>> liquid <<< gas

The nature of our existence can be best seen in a
simple passing cloud, or an enigmatic smile.

Not by looking from quarks to quasars, but looking
squarely into a mirror instead.

--
BIG LIE From Wiki - "The German expression was coined by Adolf Hitler
when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, to describe the use of a lie
so *colossal* that no one would believe that someone "could have the
impudence to distort the truth so infamously."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie

On 10/17/2021 1:02 AM, Jonathan wrote:
>
>   "A Smaller, could not be perturbed
>    The Summer Gnat displays
>    Unconscious that his single Fleet
>    Do not comprise the skies"
>
>        ~ E Dickinson
>
>
>
> Is there life elsewhere in the Universe?
> That's the wrong question since creation and
> evolution are inherent to the universe
> it's what the universe does first, best
> and every chance it gets.
>
> The question should be why do we feel like
> we're alone in the universe, since the universe
> itself is alive, and must be teeming with life.
> It's difficult to see life elsewhere for the very
> same reason the summer gnat has difficulty
> perceiving us.
>
> Every ecosystem is it's own mini-universe with
> their own unique 'laws' and axioms. We must
> learn our own natural laws and stop obsessing
> over the microphysical laws all ecosystems share.
> In a highly evolved system the part details are
> largely irrelevant to the whole.
>
> Since the...whole comes first, the...parts later.

The universe comes...first, it's microphysical laws...later.

Looking at fundamental particles and forces as an
explanation for reality and life is a bit like
obsessing over the ash to explain an intense fire.
Or explaining how a war started by counting the graves.

It doesn't get you anywhere.

True knowledge of reality can only be found by analogy.
How does everything around us come into existence?
The same must be true for us.

And reducing to the simplest examples is the
wrong direction, just as reducing to elementary
law and particles is wrong, we must do just the
opposite for our analogies, expand to ever greater
complexity.

The starting point, then, for understanding how
the universe and life came into being would be
in understanding how an...idea comes into being.

From the critical interaction of opposites in
possibility.

For an idea it's opposites would be facts and
our imagination, order and disorder, and when
those opposites critically interact until
a novel idea emerges.

order >>> Organization <<< disorder

facts >>> Ideas <<< imagination
gravity >>> Universe <<< cosmic expansion
genetics >>> Darwin <<< selection

And so on...

> Nature and reality are nothing like most believe
> it's far simpler.
>
>
>
> QUANTA MAGAZINE
>
> There Are No Laws of Physics. There’s Only the Landscape.
>
> Suppose Alice and Bob are both asked to prepare a meal.
> Alice  likes Chinese, Bob likes Italian. They each pick their
> favorite  recipe, shop at the local specialty store, and
> carefully follow  the instructions. But when they take their
> dishes out of the oven,  they are in for a big surprise.
> The two meals turn out to be identical.
>
> We can imagine the existential questions Alice and Bob
> must ask themselves. How can different ingredients produce
> the  same dish?
>
> This is exactly the perplexity experienced by quantum physicists.
> They have found many examples of two completely different
> descriptions of the same physical system. In the case of
> physics, instead of meats and sauces, the ingredients are
> particles and forces; the recipes are mathematical formulas
> encoding the interactions; and the cooking process is the
> quantization procedure that turns equations into the
> probabilities of physical phenomena. Just like Alice and Bob,
> quantum physicists wonder how different recipes lead to the
> same outcomes.
>
> Scientists seek a single description of reality. But
> modern physics allows for many different descriptions, many
> equivalent to one another, connected through a vast landscape
> of mathematical possibility.
>
> A more dramatic conclusion is that all traditional descriptions
> of fundamental physics have to be thrown out. Particles, fields,
> forces, symmetries — they are all just artifacts of a simple
> existence at the outposts in this vast landscape of
> impenetrable complexity.
>
> Thinking of physics in terms of elementary building blocks appears
> to be wrong, or at least of limited reach. Perhaps there is a
> radical new framework uniting the fundamental laws of nature
> that disregards all the familiar concepts. The mathematical
> intricacies and consistencies of string theory are a strong
> motivation for this dramatic point of view. But we have
> to be honest. Very few current ideas about what replaces
> particles and fields are “crazy enough to be true,” to quote
> Niels Bohr. Like Alice and Bob, physics is ready to throw out
> the old recipes and embrace a modern fusion cuisine.
> https://www.quantamagazine.org/there-are-no-laws-of-physics-theres-only-the-landscape-20180604/
>
>
>
>
> It's time to understand that all that exists flows from
> a unified process of /evolution/. Even the fundamental
> laws of physics evolves over time, which is the only
> way to explain the cosmic coincidence problem, where
> all the initial constants were initially set 'just right'
> so that 15 billion years later the universe became ideal
> for life.
>
> The only way to explain that is that even the fundamental
> constants and laws evolve over time so that they are
> always 'just right' to create an ever more organized
> or evolved universe.
>
> The following statement can apply to any complex system
> at all, whether the universe itself, life or even mind.
>
>
> 'Critically interacting systems self-organize to form
> potentially evolving systems exhibiting a hierarchy
> of emergent system properties.'
>
> https://naturalorder.info/self-organizingsystems.html#1.3" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://naturalorder.info/self-organizingsystems.html#1.3
>
>
> Natural Order - Self-Organizing Systems FAQ
> Frequently Asked Questions
>
> Many natural systems show organization (e.g. galaxies, planets,
> chemical compounds, cells, organisms and societies).
> Traditional scientific fields attempt to explain these features
> by referencing the micro properties or laws applicable to
> their component parts, for example gravitation or chemical bonds.
>
> Yet we can also approach the subject in a *very different way*,
> looking instead for system properties applicable to all such
> collections of parts, regardless of size or nature.
> https://naturalorder.info/self-organizingsystems.html
>
>
>
> ALL THINGS EVOLVE! Darwinian evolution is a special case
> of a larger inherent universal process of evolution.
> Complexity Science has placed that process in abstract form
> allowing application to the universe, life and mind with
> equal validity.
>
> One idea for all, instead of the reductionist approach
> of a thousand different disciplines that can't even
> talk to each other in a common scientific language.
>
> Makes all the difference as that abstract approach allows
> us to see for the first time what *all in the universe*
> *has in common* wrt their creation and evolution.
>
> And that common creative process can be seen in a simple
> passing cloud, or the Mona Lisa smile.
>
> When the opposites in possibility are at transition point
> between each other.
>
>
> simple      >>>  The Complex Realm    <<<    simple
>
> order       >>>     organization      <<<    disorder
> static      >>>       Dynamic         <<<    chaotic
>
>
> water       >>>        Cloud          <<<     vapor
> gravity     >>>       Universe        <<<   cosmic expansion
> rule of law >>>       Democracy       <<<    freedom
> genetics    >>>        Darwin         <<<    selection
> facts       >>>        Ideas          <<<    imagination
> science     >>>       Philosophy      <<<    religion
>
>
> solid       >>>        liquid         <<<     gas
>
>
> The nature of our existence can be best seen in a
> simple passing cloud, or an enigmatic smile.
>
> Not by looking from quarks to quasars, but looking
> squarely into a mirror instead.
>
>
>

--
BIG LIE From Wiki - "The German expression was coined by Adolf Hitler
when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, to describe the use of a lie
so *colossal* that no one would believe that someone "could have the
impudence to distort the truth so infamously."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie

On 10/17/2021 1:56 AM, Jonathan wrote:

Btw, just so y'all don't think I'm nuts
the author of the article cited in this
thread...

There Are No Laws in Physics.
There's Only the Landscape

Was written by Robbert Dijkgraaf, director
and Leon Levy Professor at the Institute for
Advanced Study in Princeton

Decidedly not a quack.

> On 10/17/2021 1:02 AM, Jonathan wrote:
>>
>>    "A Smaller, could not be perturbed
>>     The Summer Gnat displays
>>     Unconscious that his single Fleet
>>     Do not comprise the skies"
>>
>>         ~ E Dickinson
>>
>>
>>
>> Is there life elsewhere in the Universe?
>> That's the wrong question since creation and
>> evolution are inherent to the universe
>> it's what the universe does first, best
>> and every chance it gets.
>>
>> The question should be why do we feel like
>> we're alone in the universe, since the universe
>> itself is alive, and must be teeming with life.
>> It's difficult to see life elsewhere for the very
>> same reason the summer gnat has difficulty
>> perceiving us.
>>
>> Every ecosystem is it's own mini-universe with
>> their own unique 'laws' and axioms. We must
>> learn our own natural laws and stop obsessing
>> over the microphysical laws all ecosystems share.
>> In a highly evolved system the part details are
>> largely irrelevant to the whole.
>>
>> Since the...whole comes first, the...parts later.
>
>
> The universe comes...first, it's microphysical laws...later.
>
> Looking at fundamental particles and forces as an
> explanation for reality and life is a bit like
> obsessing over the ash to explain an intense fire.
> Or explaining how a war started by counting the graves.
>
> It doesn't get you anywhere.
>
> True knowledge of reality can only be found by analogy.
> How does everything around us come into existence?
> The same must be true for us.
>
> And reducing to the simplest examples is the
> wrong direction, just as reducing to elementary
> law and particles is wrong, we must do just the
> opposite for our analogies, expand to ever greater
> complexity.
>
> The starting point, then, for understanding how
> the universe and life came into being would be
> in understanding how an...idea comes into being.
>
> From the critical interaction of opposites in
> possibility.
>
> For an idea it's opposites would be facts and
> our imagination, order and disorder, and when
> those opposites critically interact until
> a novel idea emerges.
>
> order    >>>  Organization  <<<  disorder
>
> facts    >>>    Ideas       <<<  imagination
> gravity  >>>   Universe     <<<  cosmic expansion
> genetics >>>    Darwin      <<<   selection
>
> And so on...
>
>
>
>> Nature and reality are nothing like most believe
>> it's far simpler.
>>
>>
>>
>> QUANTA MAGAZINE
>>
>> There Are No Laws of Physics. There’s Only the Landscape.
>>
>> Suppose Alice and Bob are both asked to prepare a meal.
>> Alice  likes Chinese, Bob likes Italian. They each pick their
>> favorite  recipe, shop at the local specialty store, and
>> carefully follow  the instructions. But when they take their
>> dishes out of the oven,  they are in for a big surprise.
>> The two meals turn out to be identical.
>>
>> We can imagine the existential questions Alice and Bob
>> must ask themselves. How can different ingredients produce
>> the  same dish?
>>
>> This is exactly the perplexity experienced by quantum physicists.
>> They have found many examples of two completely different
>> descriptions of the same physical system. In the case of
>> physics, instead of meats and sauces, the ingredients are
>> particles and forces; the recipes are mathematical formulas
>> encoding the interactions; and the cooking process is the
>> quantization procedure that turns equations into the
>> probabilities of physical phenomena. Just like Alice and Bob,
>> quantum physicists wonder how different recipes lead to the
>> same outcomes.
>>
>> Scientists seek a single description of reality. But
>> modern physics allows for many different descriptions, many
>> equivalent to one another, connected through a vast landscape
>> of mathematical possibility.
>>
>> A more dramatic conclusion is that all traditional descriptions
>> of fundamental physics have to be thrown out. Particles, fields,
>> forces, symmetries — they are all just artifacts of a simple
>> existence at the outposts in this vast landscape of
>> impenetrable complexity.
>>
>> Thinking of physics in terms of elementary building blocks appears
>> to be wrong, or at least of limited reach. Perhaps there is a
>> radical new framework uniting the fundamental laws of nature
>> that disregards all the familiar concepts. The mathematical
>> intricacies and consistencies of string theory are a strong
>> motivation for this dramatic point of view. But we have
>> to be honest. Very few current ideas about what replaces
>> particles and fields are “crazy enough to be true,” to quote
>> Niels Bohr. Like Alice and Bob, physics is ready to throw out
>> the old recipes and embrace a modern fusion cuisine.
>> https://www.quantamagazine.org/there-are-no-laws-of-physics-theres-only-the-landscape-20180604/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> It's time to understand that all that exists flows from
>> a unified process of /evolution/. Even the fundamental
>> laws of physics evolves over time, which is the only
>> way to explain the cosmic coincidence problem, where
>> all the initial constants were initially set 'just right'
>> so that 15 billion years later the universe became ideal
>> for life.
>>
>> The only way to explain that is that even the fundamental
>> constants and laws evolve over time so that they are
>> always 'just right' to create an ever more organized
>> or evolved universe.
>>
>> The following statement can apply to any complex system
>> at all, whether the universe itself, life or even mind.
>>
>>
>> 'Critically interacting systems self-organize to form
>> potentially evolving systems exhibiting a hierarchy
>> of emergent system properties.'
>>
>> https://naturalorder.info/self-organizingsystems.html#1.3" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://naturalorder.info/self-organizingsystems.html#1.3
>>
>>
>> Natural Order - Self-Organizing Systems FAQ
>> Frequently Asked Questions
>>
>> Many natural systems show organization (e.g. galaxies, planets,
>> chemical compounds, cells, organisms and societies).
>> Traditional scientific fields attempt to explain these features
>> by referencing the micro properties or laws applicable to
>> their component parts, for example gravitation or chemical bonds.
>>
>> Yet we can also approach the subject in a *very different way*,
>> looking instead for system properties applicable to all such
>> collections of parts, regardless of size or nature.
>> https://naturalorder.info/self-organizingsystems.html
>>
>>
>>
>> ALL THINGS EVOLVE! Darwinian evolution is a special case
>> of a larger inherent universal process of evolution.
>> Complexity Science has placed that process in abstract form
>> allowing application to the universe, life and mind with
>> equal validity.
>>
>> One idea for all, instead of the reductionist approach
>> of a thousand different disciplines that can't even
>> talk to each other in a common scientific language.
>>
>> Makes all the difference as that abstract approach allows
>> us to see for the first time what *all in the universe*
>> *has in common* wrt their creation and evolution.
>>
>> And that common creative process can be seen in a simple
>> passing cloud, or the Mona Lisa smile.
>>
>> When the opposites in possibility are at transition point
>> between each other.
>>
>>
>> simple      >>>  The Complex Realm    <<<    simple
>>
>> order       >>>     organization      <<<    disorder
>> static      >>>       Dynamic         <<<    chaotic
>>
>>
>> water       >>>        Cloud          <<<     vapor
>> gravity     >>>       Universe        <<<   cosmic expansion
>> rule of law >>>       Democracy       <<<    freedom
>> genetics    >>>        Darwin         <<<    selection
>> facts       >>>        Ideas          <<<    imagination
>> science     >>>       Philosophy      <<<    religion
>>
>>
>> solid       >>>        liquid         <<<     gas
>>
>>
>> The nature of our existence can be best seen in a
>> simple passing cloud, or an enigmatic smile.
>>
>> Not by looking from quarks to quasars, but looking
>> squarely into a mirror instead.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 12:15:48 AM UTC+11, Jonathan wrote:
> On 10/17/2021 1:56 AM, Jonathan wrote:
> Btw, just so y'all don't think I'm nuts
> the author of the article cited in this
> thread...
>
> There Are No Laws in Physics.
> There's Only the Landscape
> Was written by Robbert Dijkgraaf, director
> and Leon Levy Professor at the Institute for
> Advanced Study in Princeton
>
> Decidedly not a quack.

Referencing somebody who's not a quack doesn't mean that you're not nuts

On Sunday, October 17, 2021 at 7:28:59 PM UTC-6, Hamish Laws wrote:

> Referencing somebody who's not a quack doesn't mean that you're not nuts

That is true enough by the strict laws of logical inference.

However, if the ideas which are so strange that they lead us to believe
him to be nuts... came from the writings of someone who is not a quack...
that would at least seem to reduce the value of them as evidence that
he is nuts.

John Savard

On 2021 Oct 18, Quadibloc wrote
(in article<86e77c03-0ada-40fe-8894-1e1ff9b8f997n@googlegroups.com>):

> On Sunday, October 17, 2021 at 7:28:59 PM UTC-6, Hamish Laws wrote:
>
> > Referencing somebody who's not a quack doesn't mean that you're not nuts
>
> That is true enough by the strict laws of logical inference.
>
> However, if the ideas which are so strange that they lead us to believe
> him to be nuts... came from the writings of someone who is not a quack...
> that would at least seem to reduce the value of them as evidence that
> he is nuts.
>
> John Savard

he’s nuts. coo-coo. he’s not quite bat-shit insane, but he’s on the
way.

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:86e77c03-0ada-40fe-8894-1e1ff9b8f997n@googlegroups.com:

> On Sunday, October 17, 2021 at 7:28:59 PM UTC-6, Hamish Laws
> wrote:
>
>> Referencing somebody who's not a quack doesn't mean that you're
>> not nuts
>
> That is true enough by the strict laws of logical inference.
>
> However, if the ideas which are so strange that they lead us to
> believe him to be nuts... came from the writings of someone who
> is not a quack... that would at least seem to reduce the value
> of them as evidence that he is nuts.
>
The only evidence one need to conclude he's nuts is his posts.

You're not much different.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On 10/17/2021 9:28 PM, Hamish Laws wrote:
> On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 12:15:48 AM UTC+11, Jonathan wrote:
>> On 10/17/2021 1:56 AM, Jonathan wrote:
>> Btw, just so y'all don't think I'm nuts
>> the author of the article cited in this
>> thread...
>>
>> There Are No Laws in Physics.
>> There's Only the Landscape
>> Was written by Robbert Dijkgraaf, director
>> and Leon Levy Professor at the Institute for
>> Advanced Study in Princeton
>>
>> Decidedly not a quack.
>
> Referencing somebody who's not a quack doesn't mean that you're not nuts
>

Ya especially when I'm saying the same thing he is.
But since you no doubt didn't read anything in
the post you wouldn't know that.

--
BIG LIE From Wiki - "The German expression was coined by Adolf Hitler
when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, to describe the use of a lie
so *colossal* that no one would believe that someone "could have the
impudence to distort the truth so infamously."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie

On 10/18/2021 6:40 AM, Wolffan wrote:
> On 2021 Oct 18, Quadibloc wrote
> (in article<86e77c03-0ada-40fe-8894-1e1ff9b8f997n@googlegroups.com>):
>
>> On Sunday, October 17, 2021 at 7:28:59 PM UTC-6, Hamish Laws wrote:
>>
>>> Referencing somebody who's not a quack doesn't mean that you're not nuts
>>
>> That is true enough by the strict laws of logical inference.
>>
>> However, if the ideas which are so strange that they lead us to believe
>> him to be nuts... came from the writings of someone who is not a quack...
>> that would at least seem to reduce the value of them as evidence that
>> he is nuts.
>>
>> John Savard
>
> he’s nuts. coo-coo. he’s not quite bat-shit insane, but he’s on the
> way.
>

You know I bet you can't point out a single thing I've
said here that's 'nuts' or hooey.

I can defend everything I say at length, just because
you don't take the time to understand what I'm saying
in no way is a poor reflection on me. But on you!

--
BIG LIE From Wiki - "The German expression was coined by Adolf Hitler
when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, to describe the use of a lie
so *colossal* that no one would believe that someone "could have the
impudence to distort the truth so infamously."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie

On 10/17/2021 1:02 AM, Jonathan wrote:

When I say something like this is there no one here
up to challenging such a dramatic claim? I said the
'chicken' comes first and can back it up.

> Since the...whole comes first, the...parts later.

And what if it's true? Can anyone here fathom
the immense scientific implications to our
long-loved objective reductionism? A science
almost entirely based on starting out with
detailing the parts.

Hint: it renders it obsolete.

I should remind this is a discussion about
nature and evolution, not building a sponge bob
or a bicycle.

On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 4:24:22 PM UTC-6, Jonathan wrote:

> And what if it's true? Can anyone here fathom
> the immense scientific implications to our
> long-loved objective reductionism? A science
> almost entirely based on starting out with
> detailing the parts.
>
> Hint: it renders it obsolete.

What *I* can't fathom is how it could possibly be true.

If all you have when you start out is, say, ammonia and
methane and water... then the properties of those molecules,
and the atoms in them, are going to determine what can
happen.

So the origin of life has to have a reductionistic foundation.

But as soon as you get to the first self-reproducing entity,
as soon as any form of life has originated... then that life
gets improved through the process of *natural selection*.
As put forward by Charles Darwin.

And, of course, that process does go in the opposite direction -
from the result of how the creature succeeds in the environment
to the creature's design.

So now you do have something that goes from the whole
to the parts, instead of the other way around - but it doesn't
require nonphysical causation, or any other type of supernatural
phenomenon.

And then, of course, there's also "ecology", which is a word
coined by Ernst Haeckel long before it acquired its present
meaning and popularity.

So, the way I see it, it isn't necessary to reject the traditional
cautious approach of science, which seeks to justify everything
in mechanistic terms, to include the holistic point of view. And
that's a very good thing, because if you do let go of the old-school
serious approach, you can very easily be left with a lot of
gosh-wow feel-good stuff which won't actually be useful in
figuring out how to _do_ anything.

John Savard

Hamish Laws <hamish.laws@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, October 18, 2021 at 12:15:48 AM UTC+11, Jonathan wrote:
>> There Are No Laws in Physics.

There is at least one Laws.