On 21/03/22 23:01, John Larkin wrote:
> We might be a high school science project.

We are a simulation, as revealed in The Matrix, which
was inspired[1] by Hofstadter's "Godel Escher Bach".

[1] whether or not they know it

On a sunny day (Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:01:32 -0700) it happened John Larkin
<jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
<p30i3h1ssj659elh1nmkmesr6joh0q10eb@4ax.com>:

>I never said that God did anything, although it is a possibility.
>
>It's reasonably probable that this world and even this universe were
>designed. We might be a high school science project.

Apart from all the fights,
It is an interesting science.
Sure, maybe A.Lien designed us in his Walmart "Make Your Own Dino kit" somewhere in this universe
or an other one.
But it has been pointed out that that leads to the question: "Who designed 'A.Lien?" (circular loop),
Darwinism makes sense - DNA is modified very fast over short lifespans
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/03/evolution-can-occur-really-really-rapidly/

we learn from our parents...
Things get REALLY complicated, and often theories need to be revised, for example about the DNA repair mechanism:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/03/220321132210.htm
This asks 30 USD, but scroll down for the pictures for free:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41594-022-00741-7

Its all very beautiful, is not my field, but could have gotten into it if I did not come from a family with watchmakers in it....??

Bit like you tinkering with cooling fans etc .. little pieces of matter linking up..
all matter is conscious.

Definition of 'God' in 'God did it?' "All we do not know was done by God?"
That is a LOT :-)

On 22/03/2022 00:01, John Larkin wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 21:18:31 +0100, David Brown
> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>
>> On 21/03/2022 20:47, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 19:45:04 +0100, David Brown
>>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 21/03/2022 17:01, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

>>
>> Right - so when you say "Darwinism is hand-waving. It's just another
>> anti-faith faith", you weren't actually dismissing it?
>
> It's possible but unlikely that our DNA life evolved that way.

You have no basis for determining the probabilities here. And you also
fail to appreciate that unlikely things happen. Sometimes people /do/
win the lottery.

> People
> have done the math and it's intimidating.

People have done all sorts of calculations. Many of these are people
with specific agendas, and many have no qualifications or justifications
for their numbers. The people who do fair calculations based on
evidence and established theory end up with huge margins because there
is so much we don't know about what /actually/ happened in the early
stage of life on earth. The best we can do is investigate what might
have been possible.

> But without evidence, it is
> hand-waving.

The RNA World hypothesis /does/ have evidence. But you don't understand
what the hypothesis is saying, so you don't understand its evidence.
The experiments being done by researchers in the field are evidence that
emergent complexity from RNA looks plausible. They are not evidence
that the RNA World is what happened - we have no clear evidence for
that, and and are unlikely to ever get much.

> So is Divine creation and panspermia and quantum
> intelligence.

These have no evidence at all. They answer no questions, give no new
information, cannot be investigated, and lead nowhere. So these really
are hand-waving.

>
> Our cells are "irreducibly complex."

That is a meaningless phrase invented by "Young Earth" creationists in
their attempts to disguise their superstitions as some kind of
"alternative science". It is used by offensive religious people (and I
use the word "offensive" in two meanings) to fool people who don't
understand what science is and how it works.

> Everything has to work before
> anything can work.

No. You are just peddling the standard "intelligent design" drivel.

If you want to believe some kind of God made the world, the universe,
and life, that's fine. But stop wrapping it in pseudo-scientific
mumbo-jumbo and pretending that makes it a valid alternative to actual
reality.

> There could be alternate explanations for life.
>

Of course there could be alternatives to the RNA World hypothesis.
There are hypotheses based on proteins, on molecular structures related
to RNA, and on combinations. There are likely to be others, both now
and in the future. But the alternatives of interest to the
non-religious are scientific ideas, not mere waffle with no substance
("God did it", "Aliens did it", etc.)

If you want to consider life having started on a different planet and
later moved to earth, either in whole or in part, then you have just
moved abiogenesis to a different startup planet. That lets you consider
different starting environments - hotter, colder, different solar
radiation characteristics, etc. You can certainly consider them in your
abiogenesis experiments and theories.

But you also have to consider the additional complications of getting
some or all of early cellular life to the early earth. And it has to
fit with what we know from evidence, such as that there was life here
from a few hundred million years (at most) after liquid water was stable
on the earth's surface, and that there is nothing to suggest all current
life did not evolve from that. Any helpful molecules or pre-earth life
that came here from elsewhere would have to survive space travel - that
allows chemicals such as amino acids or RNA precursors knocked from Mars
by meteors, but rules out complete lifeforms from around other stars
without the help of advanced intelligent species. And proposing that
just brings you full-circle back to abiogenesis, but with the added
challenge of explaining /why/ an intelligent species would bring a small
amount of very simple lifeforms all this way, dump it in a muddy puddle,
and then disappear.

>
>>
>> I wish you would have the guts to stop pissing around, and admit that
>> you have no regard for science or evidence, but find the world so
>> confusing and beyond your personal comprehension that you think it was
>> all made by some supernatural being just for you.
>
> I design world-class electronics. I couldn't do that if I didn't use
> science, evidence, experiment, and thinking.
>
> You're a coder, right?

You love to use that term as though it were an insult. I bet you are
itchy to put the word "just" in there. But of course you know nothing
about what I do other than what I have told you (and true to form, most
of that you never read, and most of what you read you didn't understand,
and most of what you understood you forgot).

> That involves no science, no math, no evidence.
> Certainly no expertise in biochemistry.
>

Science is a way of thinking and working. I am a mathematician by
education. And software design involves mathematics, experimentation,
evidence, and scientific principles. (Good electronics design does too.
It is surprising to find someone so scientifically ignorant, indeed so
determined to reject science, and working as an engineer.) Although I
have been involved in some electronics projects for biochemical
applications, the biochemistry is a hobby and interest.

>
> After all, if the
>> great genius John Larkin can't understand it, clearly nobody can - so
>> all these scientists are making stuff up, or just acting on faith.
>>
>> (Yes, I know I am paraphrasing.)
>
> More like lying. Suggesting that things are possible denies nothing.
>

Call it a summary of the message you present here.

> Design is the "possible" business.
>

No, it is not. Design is about making things that /work/ - not things
that might conceivably be plausible if you ignore reality and the
knowledge and experience of everyone else, which is how you seem to
approach topics like abiogenesis and evolution. Presumably that is not
how you do your electronics.

>>
>>> What I have conjectured is that our life form might have evolved by
>>> something other than RNA World followed by random mutation and
>>> linear-descent selection.
>>
>> And again - every time you open your mouth you demonstrate how little
>> you comprehend, and how little you even bother trying to read. If you
>> had the faintest clue about the RNA World hypothesis, or had made even a
>> rudimentary attempt at reading my posts, you'd know the RNA World
>> hypothesis is not saying that it explains how life on earth came about.
>
> OK, how did it come about?
>

We don't know. We will probably never know for sure - finding plausible
paths is the best we can do.

Filling in the gaps in human knowledge with "God did it" (or "alien
robots did it", if you prefer) is not an alternative.

>>
>> You are trying to create a straw man that the RNA World hypothesis is
>> "science's unquestioned answer to how life on earth started", combined
>> with completely unjustified claims of "the maths is against it". You
>> think that means you can fill the gap with your "God did it"
>> explanation. But actually it merely shows how little you know, and how
>> little you care about how little you know.
>
> I never said that God did anything, although it is a possibility.
>
> It's reasonably probable that this world and even this universe were
> designed. We might be a high school science project.
>

No, it is not "reasonably probable". We can't /prove/ that it is not
the case - that's the "beauty" of your "God did it" suggestion (by
whatever name you want to call it). You can't call something "probable"
unless you have evidence and justification to get at least a rough idea
of quantification - some real numbers. But for your fairy tales, you
have /nothing/. It is indistinguishable from the Flying Spaghetti
Monster, or Last Thursdayism, or The Matrix. And you can't call
something "reasonably" without having applied reason.

On 21/03/22 23:01, John Larkin wrote:
> Our cells are "irreducibly complex."

That's a meaningless phrase and concept.

It is as vacuous as the concept we saw as kid, that
the key living part of the cell is "protoplasm".

You should have more faith in mankind's intellect.

On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 16:54:27 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

>On 22/03/2022 00:01, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 21:18:31 +0100, David Brown
>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/03/2022 20:47, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 19:45:04 +0100, David Brown
>>>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 21/03/2022 17:01, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> Right - so when you say "Darwinism is hand-waving. It's just another
>>> anti-faith faith", you weren't actually dismissing it?
>>
>> It's possible but unlikely that our DNA life evolved that way.
>
>You have no basis for determining the probabilities here.

I read books authored by biochemists. Their numbers look reasonable.

A protein is a string of amino acids, typically a chain of 30 or more.
There are 20 available amino acids used to build proteins.

A cell needs thousands of proteins to work and reproduce. Many have no
conceivable incremental evolutionary path to work; subsections are
useless.

Do the math.

And you also
>fail to appreciate that unlikely things happen. Sometimes people /do/
>win the lottery.
>

When probabilities get down to 1e-150, one might be willing to
consider alternatives.

>> People
>> have done the math and it's intimidating.
>
>People have done all sorts of calculations. Many of these are people
>with specific agendas, and many have no qualifications or justifications
>for their numbers. The people who do fair calculations based on
>evidence and established theory end up with huge margins because there
>is so much we don't know about what /actually/ happened in the early
>stage of life on earth. The best we can do is investigate what might
>have been possible.
>
>> But without evidence, it is
>> hand-waving.
>
>The RNA World hypothesis /does/ have evidence. But you don't understand
>what the hypothesis is saying,

You are all personality, all combat, all insult.

That is a good defense against thinking and considering possibilities.

An excellent defense against designing.

--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 16:13:27 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On 21/03/22 23:01, John Larkin wrote:
>> Our cells are "irreducibly complex."
>
>That's a meaningless phrase and concept.

It says and means exactly that a mechanism is complex and simpler
subsets don't work. It's a common concept.

If you know of a cell replication mechanism that is simpler than the
one we have, please tell us about it. I especially like that 10,000
RPM DNA unwinder thing, and the bit that copies one strand in segmemts
in reverse. And the funny things that walk around carrying things.

>
>It is as vacuous as the concept we saw as kid, that
>the key living part of the cell is "protoplasm".
>
>You should have more faith in mankind's intellect.

You should be more polite.

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 8:33:31 AM UTC-7, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> On a sunny day (Sun, 20 Mar 2022 08:19:46 -0700) it happened
> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
> <v5he3h98mg0gd9j1r...@4ax.com>:
> >The big question around things like this is, what's the probability
> >that a system like this - which is hardly cellular life yet - could
> >happen accidentally in an inorganic world?

> 100%

We've had landers on Luna, Mars, Venus, so it
could also be called 25%.

And, there's amino acids produced in sparks-and-gasses mixtures,
which is definitely organic chemistry, so we could also deny the
'inorganic world' status for any and all known examples.

The question would be more interesting, if it were less ambiguous.

On 22/03/22 19:02, John Larkin wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 16:13:27 +0000, Tom Gardner
> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 21/03/22 23:01, John Larkin wrote:
>>> Our cells are "irreducibly complex."
>>
>> That's a meaningless phrase and concept.
>
> It says and means exactly that a mechanism is complex and simpler
> subsets don't work. It's a common concept.
>
> If you know of a cell replication mechanism that is simpler than the
> one we have, please tell us about it. I especially like that 10,000
> RPM DNA unwinder thing, and the bit that copies one strand in segmemts
> in reverse. And the funny things that walk around carrying things.

Ah. You mean the cellular reproduction mechanism is
irreducibly complex.

>> It is as vacuous as the concept we saw as kid, that
>> the key living part of the cell is "protoplasm".
>>
>> You should have more faith in mankind's intellect.
>
> You should be more polite.

You should have more faith in mankind's intellect.
It exceeds yours (and mine).

On Sunday, March 20, 2022 at 12:56:45 PM UTC-7, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2022 15:33:10 GMT, Jan Panteltje
> <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >>The big question around things like this is, what's the probability
> >>that a system like this - which is hardly cellular life yet - could
> >>happen accidentally in an inorganic world?
> >
> >100%
> >:-)

> Some serious biologists have done the math and got essentially zero.

Zero probability for WHAT, exactly? Can you give a citation?

If it's zero probability for the particular random mix of lifeforms extant today,
and/or for the slightly different random mix of lifeforms of a century ago (or
a century in the future), then... it's a meaningless calculation.

Thermodynamics of an ideal gas tells us that the not-quite-infinite possibilities
of a liter of air are such that any ACTUAL breath you take is....
of zero probability. That doesn't mean you don't breathe.
Those astronomical statistical numerations don't limit possibilities, like breathing
your next breath, and getting some oxygen in, CO2 out...

On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 22:13:21 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On 22/03/22 19:02, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 16:13:27 +0000, Tom Gardner
>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/03/22 23:01, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> Our cells are "irreducibly complex."
>>>
>>> That's a meaningless phrase and concept.
>>
>> It says and means exactly that a mechanism is complex and simpler
>> subsets don't work. It's a common concept.
>>
>> If you know of a cell replication mechanism that is simpler than the
>> one we have, please tell us about it. I especially like that 10,000
>> RPM DNA unwinder thing, and the bit that copies one strand in segmemts
>> in reverse. And the funny things that walk around carrying things.
>
>Ah. You mean the cellular reproduction mechanism is
>irreducibly complex.

That too.

>
>
>>> It is as vacuous as the concept we saw as kid, that
>>> the key living part of the cell is "protoplasm".
>>>
>>> You should have more faith in mankind's intellect.
>>
>> You should be more polite.
>
>You should have more faith in mankind's intellect.
>It exceeds yours (and mine).

There may be things that we will never understand. The origin of the
universe. The origin of life. Where consciousness comes from.

Certainly nobody understands them now, so reasonable open-mindedness
is not a failing to be mocked.

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

On 22/03/22 22:48, John Larkin wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 22:13:21 +0000, Tom Gardner
> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 22/03/22 19:02, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 16:13:27 +0000, Tom Gardner
>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 21/03/22 23:01, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> Our cells are "irreducibly complex."
>>>>
>>>> That's a meaningless phrase and concept.
>>>
>>> It says and means exactly that a mechanism is complex and simpler
>>> subsets don't work. It's a common concept.
>>>
>>> If you know of a cell replication mechanism that is simpler than the
>>> one we have, please tell us about it. I especially like that 10,000
>>> RPM DNA unwinder thing, and the bit that copies one strand in segmemts
>>> in reverse. And the funny things that walk around carrying things.
>>
>> Ah. You mean the cellular reproduction mechanism is
>> irreducibly complex.
>
> That too.
>
>>
>>
>>>> It is as vacuous as the concept we saw as kid, that
>>>> the key living part of the cell is "protoplasm".
>>>>
>>>> You should have more faith in mankind's intellect.
>>>
>>> You should be more polite.
>>
>> You should have more faith in mankind's intellect.
>> It exceeds yours (and mine).
>
> There may be things that we will never understand. The origin of the
> universe. The origin of life.

Saying "God created it", or anything equivalent, is
not understanding. It is avoiding understanding.

> Where consciousness comes from.

Consciousness is probably an emergent property.

Nowhere in the specification/description of a grain
of sand is there anything that hints that a pile of
sand will be a cone with a half-angle of ~35 degrees.

I expect consciousness will be similar.

> Certainly nobody understands them now, so reasonable open-mindedness
> is not a failing to be mocked.

True.

But it /is/ reasonable and valid to mock:
- /repeatedly/ failing to do research and understand
current knowledge
- presuming that if I don't understand something
then nobody else /can/ understand it

On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 00:19:51 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On 22/03/22 22:48, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 22:13:21 +0000, Tom Gardner
>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 22/03/22 19:02, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 16:13:27 +0000, Tom Gardner
>>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 21/03/22 23:01, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>> Our cells are "irreducibly complex."
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a meaningless phrase and concept.
>>>>
>>>> It says and means exactly that a mechanism is complex and simpler
>>>> subsets don't work. It's a common concept.
>>>>
>>>> If you know of a cell replication mechanism that is simpler than the
>>>> one we have, please tell us about it. I especially like that 10,000
>>>> RPM DNA unwinder thing, and the bit that copies one strand in segmemts
>>>> in reverse. And the funny things that walk around carrying things.
>>>
>>> Ah. You mean the cellular reproduction mechanism is
>>> irreducibly complex.
>>
>> That too.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> It is as vacuous as the concept we saw as kid, that
>>>>> the key living part of the cell is "protoplasm".
>>>>>
>>>>> You should have more faith in mankind's intellect.
>>>>
>>>> You should be more polite.
>>>
>>> You should have more faith in mankind's intellect.
>>> It exceeds yours (and mine).
>>
>> There may be things that we will never understand. The origin of the
>> universe. The origin of life.
>
>Saying "God created it", or anything equivalent, is
>not understanding. It is avoiding understanding.

I never said that.

>
>> Where consciousness comes from.
>
>Consciousness is probably an emergent property.
>
>Nowhere in the specification/description of a grain
>of sand is there anything that hints that a pile of
>sand will be a cone with a half-angle of ~35 degrees.
>
>I expect consciousness will be similar.
>
>
>> Certainly nobody understands them now, so reasonable open-mindedness
>> is not a failing to be mocked.
>
>True.
>
>But it /is/ reasonable and valid to mock:
>- /repeatedly/ failing to do research and understand
>current knowledge

I've read a lot of books about biological origins of life.

If nobody understands these things, what is "current knowledge" ?

Concensus? Hearsay? Faith?

>- presuming that if I don't understand something
>then nobody else /can/ understand it

I never said anything like that. I said that that some things might
never be understood.

You keep misquoting me so you can, as you say, mock. That's not
"reasonable and valid".

Go type some javascript or whatever you do.

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

On Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 3:48:41 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

> There may be things that we will never understand. The origin of the
> universe. The origin of life. Where consciousness comes from.

Oh, is "the origin" always an identifiable item, with a possible "comes from" answer?

The question 'where does current come from' often has an answer,
because charge is a conserved quantity, and it flows, if at all, FROM a
source, TO a sink... Hearing 'where does voltage come from' , though,
I want to write down Poisson's equation and try to explain
that 'voltage' comes from a theoretical model for a vector field's
nature as a conservative force field.

So, lots of those questions we will never understand are less than
meaningful. Godel, famously, has proved that there are mathematical
truths that we cannot prove. He did it mathematically...

That wouldn't be so poignant, if it weren't for the fact that Godel also
proved that our mathematics is not (and can never be) proven to be consistent.

On 3/22/2022 2:28 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> On a sunny day (Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:01:32 -0700) it happened John Larkin
> <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
> <p30i3h1ssj659elh1nmkmesr6joh0q10eb@4ax.com>:
>
>> I never said that God did anything, although it is a possibility.
>>
>> It's reasonably probable that this world and even this universe were
>> designed. We might be a high school science project.
>
> Apart from all the fights,
> It is an interesting science.
> Sure, maybe A.Lien designed us in his Walmart "Make Your Own Dino kit" somewhere in this universe
> or an other one.
> But it has been pointed out that that leads to the question: "Who designed 'A.Lien?" (circular loop),
> Darwinism makes sense - DNA is modified very fast over short lifespans
> https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/03/evolution-can-occur-really-really-rapidly/
>
> we learn from our parents...
> Things get REALLY complicated, and often theories need to be revised, for example about the DNA repair mechanism:
> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/03/220321132210.htm
> This asks 30 USD, but scroll down for the pictures for free:
> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41594-022-00741-7
>
> Its all very beautiful, is not my field, but could have gotten into it if I did not come from a family with watchmakers in it....??
>
> Bit like you tinkering with cooling fans etc .. little pieces of matter linking up..
> all matter is conscious.
>
> Definition of 'God' in 'God did it?' "All we do not know was done by God?"
> That is a LOT :-)
>

It is extremely interesting science! Though philosophically it probably
doesn't change very much. Even the Pope at this point is on record as
saying "God is not a magician" and didn't manufacture life literally out
of nothing as in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

<https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/10/28/359564982/pope-says-god-not-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand>

Though this may have offended a few Catholics it probably didn't offend
anyone with a brain.

On Tuesday, March 22, 2022 at 5:50:45 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

> I've read a lot of books about biological origins of life.
>
> If nobody understands these things, what is "current knowledge" ?

The 'nobody understands' means we need more research? That's a given,
in LOTS of fields. It doesn't mean we don't have an ongoing body of knowledge.

> Concensus?

Sometimes; it usually is the case that experts agree.

> Hearsay?
.... remember the game of gossip; there's EVERYTHING under the
"Hearsay" label: knowledge, fantasy, garbled syllables, rumors, lies, distortions...

> Faith?

Science (formal knowledge and understanding) has no need of that
because another observation, tomorrow, is allowed to change it all.
That's the contingency that defines an open mind, also, and denies
implcitly any absolute human authority.

> >- presuming that if I don't understand something
> >then nobody else /can/ understand it

> I never said anything like that. I said that that some things might
> never be understood.

Trickster! No one, and never, both mean the matter is beyond human
capacity. But, we don't know everything about human capacity.

I'm willing to say that division by zero IS beyond human capacity, though.
In mathematics, we aren't making observations of nature every day... so
math things are not contingent on events, observation, experiment.

The attempt to put 'current knowledge' of any significant branch of science into
the pigeonholes "concensus", or "faith" or "hearsay" is doomed. None of those fit.

On 3/22/2022 11:54 AM, David Brown wrote:

> No, it is not "reasonably probable". We can't /prove/ that it is not
> the case - that's the "beauty" of your "God did it" suggestion (by
> whatever name you want to call it). You can't call something "probable"
> unless you have evidence and justification to get at least a rough idea
> of quantification - some real numbers. But for your fairy tales, you
> have /nothing/. It is indistinguishable from the Flying Spaghetti
> Monster, or Last Thursdayism, or The Matrix. And you can't call
> something "reasonably" without having applied reason.

The possibility that we live in some sort of say ancestor-simulation is
plausibly testable, at least indirectly, making some assumptions about
how the creators of an ancestor-simulation would operate it.

Unlikely to provide absolute answers of course, but the outcomes could
provide bigger or smaller weights to ontological propositions regarding
stuff like the lifetime of intelligent civilizations, whether
intelligent civilizations find value in running ancestor simulations,
whether it's theoretically possible to run ancestor simulations on
computers that can plausibly exist in our Universe, etc.

On a sunny day (Tue, 22 Mar 2022 23:17:45 -0400) it happened bitrex
<user@example.net> wrote in <ujw_J.188552$iK66.69199@fx46.iad>:

>On 3/22/2022 2:28 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>> On a sunny day (Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:01:32 -0700) it happened John Larkin
>> <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
>> <p30i3h1ssj659elh1nmkmesr6joh0q10eb@4ax.com>:
>>
>>> I never said that God did anything, although it is a possibility.
>>>
>>> It's reasonably probable that this world and even this universe were
>>> designed. We might be a high school science project.
>>
>> Apart from all the fights,
>> It is an interesting science.
>> Sure, maybe A.Lien designed us in his Walmart "Make Your Own Dino kit" somewhere in this universe
>> or an other one.
>> But it has been pointed out that that leads to the question: "Who designed 'A.Lien?" (circular loop),
>> Darwinism makes sense - DNA is modified very fast over short lifespans
>> https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/03/evolution-can-occur-really-really-rapidly/
>>
>> we learn from our parents...
>> Things get REALLY complicated, and often theories need to be revised, for example about the DNA repair mechanism:
>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/03/220321132210.htm
>> This asks 30 USD, but scroll down for the pictures for free:
>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41594-022-00741-7
>>
>> Its all very beautiful, is not my field, but could have gotten into it if I did not come from a family with watchmakers in
>> it....??
>>
>> Bit like you tinkering with cooling fans etc .. little pieces of matter linking up..
>> all matter is conscious.
>>
>> Definition of 'God' in 'God did it?' "All we do not know was done by God?"
>> That is a LOT :-)
>>
>
>
>It is extremely interesting science! Though philosophically it probably
>doesn't change very much. Even the Pope at this point is on record as
>saying "God is not a magician" and didn't manufacture life literally out
>of nothing as in a literal interpretation of Genesis.
>
><https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/10/28/359564982/pope-says-god-not-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand>
>
>Though this may have offended a few Catholics it probably didn't offend
>anyone with a brain.

I do not follow the Pope's utterings, those have no value for me,
Considering all the harm that club has done to people and science over the ages.
War criminals
Neither have Biden's utterings any value for me, Military Industrial Complex making war and selling weapons is their business
a defective brain puppet is their perfect tool.
War criminals

On 3/23/2022 2:00 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
> On a sunny day (Tue, 22 Mar 2022 23:17:45 -0400) it happened bitrex
> <user@example.net> wrote in <ujw_J.188552$iK66.69199@fx46.iad>:
>
>> On 3/22/2022 2:28 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:
>>> On a sunny day (Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:01:32 -0700) it happened John Larkin
>>> <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
>>> <p30i3h1ssj659elh1nmkmesr6joh0q10eb@4ax.com>:
>>>
>>>> I never said that God did anything, although it is a possibility.
>>>>
>>>> It's reasonably probable that this world and even this universe were
>>>> designed. We might be a high school science project.
>>>
>>> Apart from all the fights,
>>> It is an interesting science.
>>> Sure, maybe A.Lien designed us in his Walmart "Make Your Own Dino kit" somewhere in this universe
>>> or an other one.
>>> But it has been pointed out that that leads to the question: "Who designed 'A.Lien?" (circular loop),
>>> Darwinism makes sense - DNA is modified very fast over short lifespans
>>> https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/03/evolution-can-occur-really-really-rapidly/
>>>
>>> we learn from our parents...
>>> Things get REALLY complicated, and often theories need to be revised, for example about the DNA repair mechanism:
>>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/03/220321132210.htm
>>> This asks 30 USD, but scroll down for the pictures for free:
>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41594-022-00741-7
>>>
>>> Its all very beautiful, is not my field, but could have gotten into it if I did not come from a family with watchmakers in
>>> it....??
>>>
>>> Bit like you tinkering with cooling fans etc .. little pieces of matter linking up..
>>> all matter is conscious.
>>>
>>> Definition of 'God' in 'God did it?' "All we do not know was done by God?"
>>> That is a LOT :-)
>>>
>>
>>
>> It is extremely interesting science! Though philosophically it probably
>> doesn't change very much. Even the Pope at this point is on record as
>> saying "God is not a magician" and didn't manufacture life literally out
>> of nothing as in a literal interpretation of Genesis.
>>
>> <https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/10/28/359564982/pope-says-god-not-a-magician-with-a-magic-wand>
>>
>> Though this may have offended a few Catholics it probably didn't offend
>> anyone with a brain.
>
> I do not follow the Pope's utterings, those have no value for me,
> Considering all the harm that club has done to people and science over the ages.
> War criminals

I'm an Episcopalian - we left the Church of England behind quite a while
ago, and the Pope's authority quite a while before that.

> Neither have Biden's utterings any value for me, Military Industrial Complex making war and selling weapons is their business
> a defective brain puppet is their perfect tool.
> War criminals

On a sunny day (Tue, 22 Mar 2022 15:48:30 -0700) it happened John Larkin
<jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
<h7kk3hht887bu7jotdp2a7q4punnbounve@4ax.com>:

>There may be things that we will never understand. The origin of the
>universe. The origin of life. Where consciousness comes from.
>
>Certainly nobody understands them now, so reasonable open-mindedness
>is not a failing to be mocked.

As to evolution, would you ever expect that an ape-like colony as we are
would self evolve to produce microchips? Communicate via radio?
It is the same mechanism at work!

In your view that probability (apes making nano nano micro chips) would be zero...

In reality things come together, form new things together, use things found by other things, sustain each other,
pick up methods, get more and more complex.
what works persists.
And a hundred zillion times all over again in this universe at any moment.

On 23/03/22 00:50, John Larkin wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 00:19:51 +0000, Tom Gardner
> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 22/03/22 22:48, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 22:13:21 +0000, Tom Gardner
>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 22/03/22 19:02, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 16:13:27 +0000, Tom Gardner
>>>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 21/03/22 23:01, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>> Our cells are "irreducibly complex."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's a meaningless phrase and concept.
>>>>>
>>>>> It says and means exactly that a mechanism is complex and simpler
>>>>> subsets don't work. It's a common concept.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you know of a cell replication mechanism that is simpler than the
>>>>> one we have, please tell us about it. I especially like that 10,000
>>>>> RPM DNA unwinder thing, and the bit that copies one strand in segmemts
>>>>> in reverse. And the funny things that walk around carrying things.
>>>>
>>>> Ah. You mean the cellular reproduction mechanism is
>>>> irreducibly complex.
>>>
>>> That too.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> It is as vacuous as the concept we saw as kid, that
>>>>>> the key living part of the cell is "protoplasm".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You should have more faith in mankind's intellect.
>>>>>
>>>>> You should be more polite.
>>>>
>>>> You should have more faith in mankind's intellect.
>>>> It exceeds yours (and mine).
>>>
>>> There may be things that we will never understand. The origin of the
>>> universe. The origin of life.
>>
>> Saying "God created it", or anything equivalent, is
>> not understanding. It is avoiding understanding.
>
> I never said that.

Several people have pointed out that you have repeatedly
said thing that /are/ *equivalent*. They have given
reasons for the equivalence.

You have only asserted, without justification, that
they aren't equivalent.

>>> Where consciousness comes from.
>>
>> Consciousness is probably an emergent property.
>>
>> Nowhere in the specification/description of a grain
>> of sand is there anything that hints that a pile of
>> sand will be a cone with a half-angle of ~35 degrees.
>>
>> I expect consciousness will be similar.
>>
>>
>>> Certainly nobody understands them now, so reasonable open-mindedness
>>> is not a failing to be mocked.
>>
>> True.
>>
>> But it /is/ reasonable and valid to mock:
>> - /repeatedly/ failing to do research and understand
>> current knowledge
>
> I've read a lot of books about biological origins of life.
>
> If nobody understands these things, what is "current knowledge" ?
>
> Concensus? Hearsay? Faith?

whit3rd's response to that is to the point.

>> - presuming that if I don't understand something
>> then nobody else /can/ understand it
>
> I never said anything like that.

You didn't say it. That doesn't mean it isn't the case.

If you don't understand that then you couldn't be
trusted to produce correct javascript.

>I said that that some things might
> never be understood.
>
> You keep misquoting me so you can, as you say, mock. That's not
> "reasonable and valid".
>
> Go type some javascript or whatever you do.

Cheap insults don't help.

On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 07:34:20 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>On 23/03/22 00:50, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 00:19:51 +0000, Tom Gardner
>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 22/03/22 22:48, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 22:13:21 +0000, Tom Gardner
>>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 22/03/22 19:02, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 16:13:27 +0000, Tom Gardner
>>>>>> <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 21/03/22 23:01, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>> Our cells are "irreducibly complex."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's a meaningless phrase and concept.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It says and means exactly that a mechanism is complex and simpler
>>>>>> subsets don't work. It's a common concept.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you know of a cell replication mechanism that is simpler than the
>>>>>> one we have, please tell us about it. I especially like that 10,000
>>>>>> RPM DNA unwinder thing, and the bit that copies one strand in segmemts
>>>>>> in reverse. And the funny things that walk around carrying things.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah. You mean the cellular reproduction mechanism is
>>>>> irreducibly complex.
>>>>
>>>> That too.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is as vacuous as the concept we saw as kid, that
>>>>>>> the key living part of the cell is "protoplasm".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You should have more faith in mankind's intellect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You should be more polite.
>>>>>
>>>>> You should have more faith in mankind's intellect.
>>>>> It exceeds yours (and mine).
>>>>
>>>> There may be things that we will never understand. The origin of the
>>>> universe. The origin of life.
>>>
>>> Saying "God created it", or anything equivalent, is
>>> not understanding. It is avoiding understanding.
>>
>> I never said that.
>
>Several people have pointed out that you have repeatedly
>said thing that /are/ *equivalent*. They have given
>reasons for the equivalence.

Cite a statement where I said that God created life on earth.

And "several people" ? That's your call to authority? Several people
on usenet!

What is the origin of DNA-based life on earth?

>
>You have only asserted, without justification, that
>they aren't equivalent.
>
>

Do you actually ever do anything useful? Or original?

Tell us.

--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 06:13:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On a sunny day (Tue, 22 Mar 2022 15:48:30 -0700) it happened John Larkin
><jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
><h7kk3hht887bu7jotdp2a7q4punnbounve@4ax.com>:
>
>>There may be things that we will never understand. The origin of the
>>universe. The origin of life. Where consciousness comes from.
>>
>>Certainly nobody understands them now, so reasonable open-mindedness
>>is not a failing to be mocked.
>
>As to evolution, would you ever expect that an ape-like colony as we are
>would self evolve to produce microchips? Communicate via radio?
>It is the same mechanism at work!

Darwinian incremental evolution happens in plain sight, although it is
surely more efficient than random mutation and natural selection.

The big unknown is how the first, incredibly complex, reproducing
DNA-based cells came to be, and survived. That couldn't have been an
incremental process.

>
>In your view that probability (apes making nano nano micro chips) would be zero...

No, we are involved in EUV lithography so of course it works.

--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Mar 2022 07:43:37 -0700) it happened
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
<s8cm3hh2mu6tlc5sc643n1907u9v79cp5k@4ax.com>:

>On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 06:13:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje
><pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On a sunny day (Tue, 22 Mar 2022 15:48:30 -0700) it happened John Larkin
>><jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
>><h7kk3hht887bu7jotdp2a7q4punnbounve@4ax.com>:
>>
>>>There may be things that we will never understand. The origin of the
>>>universe. The origin of life. Where consciousness comes from.
>>>
>>>Certainly nobody understands them now, so reasonable open-mindedness
>>>is not a failing to be mocked.
>>
>>As to evolution, would you ever expect that an ape-like colony as we are
>>would self evolve to produce microchips? Communicate via radio?
>>It is the same mechanism at work!
>
>Darwinian incremental evolution happens in plain sight, although it is
>surely more efficient than random mutation and natural selection.
>
>The big unknown is how the first, incredibly complex, reproducing
>DNA-based cells came to be, and survived. That couldn't have been an
>incremental process.

Depends what you mean by 'incremental'
All nature is incremental, strange basic particles - like what CERN is looking for - combined to form quarks combining into atoms
that then formed elements (neatly described in the periodic system) that then combined into all sorts of things
RNA, DNA, that then combined into .. apes .. humans making microchips, whatever is next...

>>
>>In your view that probability (apes making nano nano micro chips) would be zero...
>
>No, we are involved in EUV lithography so of course it works.

sigh :-)

I will leave it a this.

On 22/03/2022 17:18, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 16:54:27 +0100, David Brown
> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>
>> On 22/03/2022 00:01, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 21:18:31 +0100, David Brown
>>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 21/03/2022 20:47, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2022 19:45:04 +0100, David Brown
>>>>> <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 21/03/2022 17:01, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Right - so when you say "Darwinism is hand-waving. It's just another
>>>> anti-faith faith", you weren't actually dismissing it?
>>>
>>> It's possible but unlikely that our DNA life evolved that way.
>>
>> You have no basis for determining the probabilities here.
>
> I read books authored by biochemists. Their numbers look reasonable.
>
> A protein is a string of amino acids, typically a chain of 30 or more.
> There are 20 available amino acids used to build proteins.
>
> A cell needs thousands of proteins to work and reproduce. Many have no
> conceivable incremental evolutionary path to work; subsections are
> useless.
>
> Do the math.
>

What the *bleep* are you talking about? Only the "God did it" lot think
scientific abiogenesis hypothesis suggest that a modern day cell turned
up fully functional, by chance in a slime pool. I keep telling you that
you have /no/ idea what the RNA World hypothesis is, or any other aspect
of abiogenesis research, or how basic science works. You think it's an
insult - it's simple fact, and you prove it again and again.

On 23/03/22 14:43, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2022 06:13:07 GMT, Jan Panteltje
> <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On a sunny day (Tue, 22 Mar 2022 15:48:30 -0700) it happened John Larkin
>> <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
>> <h7kk3hht887bu7jotdp2a7q4punnbounve@4ax.com>:
>>
>>> There may be things that we will never understand. The origin of the
>>> universe. The origin of life. Where consciousness comes from.
>>>
>>> Certainly nobody understands them now, so reasonable open-mindedness
>>> is not a failing to be mocked.
>>
>> As to evolution, would you ever expect that an ape-like colony as we are
>> would self evolve to produce microchips? Communicate via radio?
>> It is the same mechanism at work!
>
> Darwinian incremental evolution happens in plain sight, although it is
> surely more efficient than random mutation and natural selection.

What do you think Darwinian evolution is, if not random mutation
plus natural selection?

> The big unknown is how the first, incredibly complex, reproducing
> DNA-based cells came to be, and survived.

That key question is currently not well answered, but several
plausible natural mechanisms have been suggested.

I have faith that mankind will continue to refine both
understanding and questions about that topic.

> That couldn't have been an incremental process.

Why not?