How does a life come to manifest?

[Nirvanam]

Latest post of the previous page:

AAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

I sometimes think you are being willfully difficult.

LOL! No Paolo, its not like that. The moment I find your argument convincing I'll be the first one to accept it and change my viewpoint accordingly.

Someone mentions 'chance' amongst other things and you only look at the issues relating to chance - not those relating to the other issues and how these will influence and be influenced by chance.

That is my psychological inertia....lol

Chance alone is not an explanation for anything much, because the chances of something happening are altered by circumstance.

Isn't altered by circumstance itself chancey?

Things go from being unlikely to very likely as soon as a stabilising force emerges.

This is where I give the benefit of doubt, like I did in my previous post. I have no problem with this to a certain extent. You'd agree there would need to be multiple stabilizing forces involved to ensure that chance turns to likely? Did each of those forces themselves emerged through chance?

However, the emerging structure does not need to be guided by anything more than chance - it is because that's the way it happened.

It depends on which step we are in the process. If we are closer to the end then it may hold good. However, at the very beginning there is still a huge amount of chance involved. Because it happened the first time it does not mean it has to happen again. For it to happen again in the same way, there has to be some natural code embedded into it. Where is the code coming from? The structure of an atom itself is the code is not even tested I guess. But that's a creative way of theorizing and I have no problem with that. Just that I choose to believe that 'the structure itself being the code' was through external intelligence not chance. And here, do you agree neither of us can claim to be right? There is no scientific studies done which have established either of these theories as true, right?

Rewind and try it again with one variable being different and it will form a different structure.

Yes, yes, this is where I was hoping to get your attention to. Now let's go back to the stage when Hydrogen was being born. Four forces existed at that time, and let me just use some arbitrary values for Hydrogen to form:
So, at the birth of the universe, the first element to be formed was Hydrogen. We can explain this by the regular Y = F(x). In other words, One Hydrogen atom = F(emforce, gforce, snforce, wnforce). Let's just assign some values to this: 1H = A*gmf + B*gf + C*snf + D*wnf (pls ignore the mathematical operators here...they are not imp).
If we look at all systems around us, you'd know that a change in one or two variables will give rise to 'something' which is not the product we want. But the main point is that it will give rise to 'something'.

So at the birth of the universe (now let's traverse from cause to effect) A*gmf + B*gf + C*snf + D*wnf = 1H. A,B,C,D could take infinite values. Yet only when they take those specific values does 1H form. Now, are you saying that the rest of the 4 infinities - 1 chances all went wasted...nothing came out of them? If they did, what and where are they? (these are not other elements like He...the other elements will come into picture after H has formed).

Is the chance theory arguing that those 4 forces having infinite opportunities each will end up with only one amazingly perfect precision totally by chance in forming the first element? If this is so, then you are necessarily arguing that, (A-1)*gmf + B*gmf + C*snf + D*wnf = nothing at all...in fact no matter what values A, B, C, D take every interaction will yield nothing except in just one interaction which then leads to a Hydrogen atom?

It just so happens that the structure that has been formed in our universe has ended up with us. If one thing had been different we would not exist, but that is irrelevant, because if it had happened we wouldn't be here to ask the questions about what happened. We are a result of a process, not a goal that has been achieved.

That's where I am finding it very very difficult to imagine that a very slight difference at the early stages (or for that matter even further down the line) would not have any output. If that is true why do you see common ancestors for many creatures? Some slight change occurred in creature X which led to a different path and to creature Y. Another small change occurred in creature X which led to a different path and to creature Z. Often these changes so minute. If such minute changes can create many different variations of creatures, why should the first process of Hydrogen formation not lead to infinite brothers and sisters of Hydrogen? (again, they are not other elements).

In your meteor example, if the meteor missed the boy by an inch, the boy is alive, no doubt. However, the meteor has left a mark on the ground or whatever was next to him. Where is such an effect of slight variations of the first 4 forces forming Hydrogen? Surely you aren't gonna argue that one and only one impossibly precise condition (interaction of those 4 forces) could create something, and all the other infinities - 1 conditions created nothing.

[Nirvanam]

Surely you aren't gonna argue that one and only one impossibly precise condition (interaction of those 4 forces) could create something, and all the other infinities - 1 conditions created nothing.

I'll put this differently...Surely you are not arguing that a process which requires all its 4 lead actors to be so impossibly precise to be able to manifest something (and nothing else) is so impossibly coincidental?

My belief is that it is not coincidental but, by design to ensure such precision is NECESSARY to move forward plus anything other than such almost impossibly perfect precision will not yield much.

[Paolo]

It depends on which step we are in the process. If we are closer to the end then it may hold good.

I see why you are not quite getting what I'm saying from this. Every step in the process is an end step of sorts if it results in something stable. There is no future being planned. Future developments are made possible by the interactions of the stable results of previous processes, but those products are defined by the properties of their constituents and the interactions between them.

I'll put this differently...Surely you are not arguing that a process which requires all its 4 lead actors to be so impossibly precise to be able to manifest something (and nothing else) is so impossibly coincidental?

What I'm arguing is that lots of processes constantly happen and the only stable product is one where all its 4 lead actors happened to interact in certain ways. The only measurable product will be the stable product, everything else that might be produced collapses and re-enters the non-physical/alternate dimensional system, until eventually it will hit upon a stable state and therefore exit the system.

Think of the vast amount of undetectable "dark matter" in the universe - my thought is that this may be a result of the temporary appearance of unstable products that are constantly collapsing (call these emerging and collapsing structures strings if like). The constant production of such unstable matter would contribute to universal mass, but it would not be observable without incredibly sensitive equipment - more to the point, there may only be a very few regions in the universe that could provide conditions that favoured the formation of stable products.

Given the scale of space-time in comparison to the vanishingly small size and extreme rapidity of formation that might be expected of stable products under favourable conditions, I think the term 'impossibly coincidental' is misguided at best. Even if a stable product is only produced once in every 1x10(99) processes it seems impossible to get a stable product, but if the process occurs 1x10(99) times a second then you expect a stable product to be formed at least once a second. Small chances can become certainties given a large enough opportunity. You just wouldn't see the other 0.999999rx10(99) products because they're not stable.

[Paolo]

N.B. This was slightly tipsy hypothesising based on a very poor understanding of string theory and quantum physics, so don't take it as being in any way authoritative, it is only meant to be illustrative of a possibility.

Think of the vast amount of undetectable "dark matter" in the universe - my thought is that this may be a result of the temporary appearance of unstable products that are constantly collapsing (call these emerging and collapsing structures strings if like). The constant production of such unstable matter would contribute to universal mass, but it would not be observable without incredibly sensitive equipment - more to the point, there may only be a very few regions in the universe that could provide conditions that favoured the formation of stable products.

[Nirvanam]

Paolo, the dark matter in space I think adds a little intrigue to the chance theory. Maybe, just maybe, if I theorize thus: all other combinations of the 4 lead actors makes them such that they cannot transmit/reflect light. And the one that we are experiencing is the actual freak in the main scheme of things.
Also it could be possible that the rest of the infinities of the 4 actors has given rise to many many universes which probably exist in the same space and time that we do. Just that their definition of "light" may be different. Our existence may be the dark matter to them.

The above reduces the impact of chance...basically it says that what we think as chance is not chance at all. That it is just one of the infinite manifestations of the space-time construct we call universe. Similar beliefs are held in the ancient Indian sciences. Anyway that apart, I think if I take this perspective I can see how the universe is both chancey yet planned. I think this perspective can give us more answers than just plain chance theory.

If we seriously think about it, more than 99% of this "existence" is space. And that space may not be vacuum at all...in fact I don't know if there can ever exist theoretical vacuum. Our bodies are more than 99% space (?). So there might be another reality occupying the same space and time that we are occupying.

That reminds me of my new fav physicist Michio Kaku...in one of those Nat Geo/History programs they were talking about chupacabras. Then Michio extends his theory of the universe being a multi-storeyed building. We live on one floor and since we are rarely on other floors we don't know what is there. Same case for beings on the other floors. But sometimes we meet them in the elevator...so these sightings of strange things can be explained as these coincidental meetings.

[Paolo]

Paolo, the dark matter in space I think adds a little intrigue to the chance theory. Maybe, just maybe, if I theorize thus: all other combinations of the 4 lead actors makes them such that they cannot transmit/reflect light. And the one that we are experiencing is the actual freak in the main scheme of things.
Also it could be possible that the rest of the infinities of the 4 actors has given rise to many many universes which probably exist in the same space and time that we do. Just that their definition of "light" may be different. Our existence may be the dark matter to them.

The above reduces the impact of chance...basically it says that what we think as chance is not chance at all. That it is just one of the infinite manifestations of the space-time construct we call universe. Similar beliefs are held in the ancient Indian sciences. Anyway that apart, I think if I take this perspective I can see how the universe is both chancey yet planned. I think this perspective can give us more answers than just plain chance theory.

Sorry Nirvanam, but I fail to see any reason for planning to be invoked. There is no evidence for planning and no need to invoke it. Structure need not be planned and I think you are conflating planning with emergent properties of stable systems - but they are not the same thing (stable systems may be planned, but they also arise without planning).

[Nirvanam]

Sorry Nirvanam, but I fail to see any reason for planning to be invoked. There is no evidence for planning and no need to invoke it. Structure need not be planned and I think you are conflating planning with emergent properties of stable systems - but they are not the same thing (stable systems may be planned, but they also arise without planning).

I kinda expected you would react that way. It's the same thing, Paolo...there is absolutely no evidence to say the way the universe has turned out is chancey. Our beliefs are at different extremes at the very fundamental core, although they may manifest at higher orders as meaning the same.

Fundamentally; I believe that I, you, everything is the creator. I believe that the creator and the creation are one and the same.
Whereas you believe that there is no sentience associated with creation: that creation/existence is totally chancey.

Will we ever be able to prove each other right or wrong? Never*. The best we can do is probably dig deep down and figure out at which point do our fundamental beliefs cause the split of opinion to take part. At least on this issue, I guess we have gone down quite deep.

* until our popular scientific methodologies consider evidence to have properties of both physical and objective

At least you and I have tried to discuss this topic and gone thru it, tried to understand the perspective of the other (whether we agree to the opinion or not is different). We still stand on the same ground. However, we have more conviction in where we stand. Somehow I find this way of forming an opinion is much more beneficial than forming an opinion based on faith which many religionists, scientists, humanists, bankers, sportsmen, every type of human does. Not that it makes us intrinsically "better"...it only gives us more conviction in our beliefs.

[Paolo]

Sorry Nirvanam, but I fail to see any reason for planning to be invoked. There is no evidence for planning and no need to invoke it. Structure need not be planned and I think you are conflating planning with emergent properties of stable systems - but they are not the same thing (stable systems may be planned, but they also arise without planning).

I kinda expected you would react that way. It's the same thing, Paolo...there is absolutely no evidence to say the way the universe has turned out is chancey. Our beliefs are at different extremes at the very fundamental core, although they may manifest at higher orders as meaning the same.

Fundamentally; I believe that I, you, everything is the creator. I believe that the creator and the creation are one and the same.
Whereas you believe that there is no sentience associated with creation: that creation/existence is totally chancey.

Will we ever be able to prove each other right or wrong? Never*. The best we can do is probably dig deep down and figure out at which point do our fundamental beliefs cause the split of opinion to take part. At least on this issue, I guess we have gone down quite deep.

The difference being the number of unsupported assumptions we are willing to make and the mechanisms we can find in support of our opinions. I have never seen any evidence that intelligence directs the development of anything except some of the direct products of human or animal cultures. The fact that such intelligence exists is merely a biological refinement of a trial and error developmental process that is driven by chance. I think you are taking an end result of a very long process and trying to apply it backwards through time to apply to entirely different sets of conditions. Heck, I'd say that intelligence is little more than a mechanism by which the hit-or-miss processes of chance have been sped up by the implementation of an extra selection mechanism - the brain.
The dichotomy can be summarised as a bottom-up or top-down approach to organisation of structures. I favour the bottom-up, because it doesn’t require a top-level entity to coordinate the development of the structure. If the stable structure of the universe was established by top-down processes, where did that top-level come from?

[Nirvanam]

The difference being the number of unsupported assumptions we are willing to make and the mechanisms we can find in support of our opinions. I have never seen any evidence that intelligence directs the development of anything except some of the direct products of human or animal cultures. The fact that such intelligence exists is merely a biological refinement of a trial and error developmental process that is driven by chance. I think you are taking an end result of a very long process and trying to apply it backwards through time to apply to entirely different sets of conditions. Heck, I'd say that intelligence is little more than a mechanism by which the hit-or-miss processes of chance have been sped up by the implementation of an extra selection mechanism - the brain.
The dichotomy can be summarised as a bottom-up or top-down approach to organisation of structures. I favour the bottom-up, because it doesn’t require a top-level entity to coordinate the development of the structure. If the stable structure of the universe was established by top-down processes, where did that top-level come from?

The top-level, the middle-level, the bottom-level are all happening at the same time...that is the dichotomy.

See the thing is, if you wanted to understand my perspective, it would require you to break down your own artificial rational chains binding you. Because honestly they will sound way too fantastic for you to get yourself around them. This does not mean you are lacking something. It only means that your chosen path of understanding the universe is very different from mine. While I am open to non-physical, subjective, understandings to influence my beliefs, you are not...rather more cautious than I am.

At the end of the day, no matter how much we argue and how much ever logic and other means of arguments we may create, we still stand on the same ground, only difference would be that our convictions may undergo changes.

At some point you have to accept that rationality, and logic, and the modern scientific process of understanding things has its limitation. If we are conscious of that limitation, we will not fool ourselves into believing that our viewpoint is the "right" one (because current rational/logical thought process does not deny it). I am sure you are aware of that already and conscious of that in your arguments.

Actually the simplest way to turn this whole argument over its head is by restating the quite arbitrarily chosen Null Hypothesis. the Null Hypothesis states "there is no intelligence driving the growth of the fetus". Why was it chosen thus? Some theorist felt that would be the best way so we live with it. Suppose history turned out different and that fellow woke up on the other side of the bed that day and chose to state the Null Hypothesis as, "there is intelligence driving the growth of the fetus". Game over!

I guess you'd know this much better than me....the null hypothesis decides the fate of the experiment.

[Paolo]

The top-level, the middle-level, the bottom-level are all happening at the same time...that is the dichotomy.

That would be a trichotomy. Except of course we know that these levels do not all happen at the same time, when something develops it starts at a basic state and becomes more complex. When we look at where the information to fuel that process comes from by looking at the fossil record it starts off more simple and gets more complex over time. When we look at how a crystal forms it starts off simple and grows to become more complex.

There is nothing, anywhere, to suggest complexity comes first.

At some point you have to accept that rationality, and logic, and the modern scientific process of understanding things has its limitation.

Of course there are limitations and assumptions, but such limitations and assumptions are nothing like the limitations of relying on imagination without recourse to evidence. For someone who is sceptical of the role of chance, you are very dependent on it to find accurate truths about the universe. You can imagine just about anything, so without testing those imaginings you rely on chance for them to be correct. The limitations of logic and the scientific process are there to whittle down the likely possibilities to make it more likely that we hit upon an accurate understanding.

[Nirvanam]

Except of course we know that these levels do not all happen at the same time, when something develops it starts at a basic state and becomes more complex. When we look at where the information to fuel that process comes from by looking at the fossil record it starts off more simple and gets more complex over time. When we look at how a crystal forms it starts off simple and grows to become more complex.

If you imagine time to be a not necessarily linear entity then all happens at the same time and yet each point in time is unique. See these are all very esoteric stuff and I know there is way too much resistance to it here. Some people might just respect it as another's opinion but some will jump into it. The fact is that subjective stuff, by their very nature, cannot have one answer. They are not like objective stuff: this or that, 0 or 1, yes or no, digital. They can be: this AND that, 0 AND 1, yes AND no, analog.

There is nothing, anywhere, to suggest complexity comes first.

The way you view time can change stuff

Of course there are limitations and assumptions, but such limitations and assumptions are nothing like the limitations of relying on imagination without recourse to evidence.

Let me correct your misinterpretation, I do not claim them as "evidence". That's the key here. See I believe that the universe lies in the mind of the perceiver. And a concept like this, an entity so subjective basically loses its intrigue, its character, its magnetism if we try to explain it in objective ways. For ex: "love" is a subjective thing. It needs to be felt, otherwise you cannot understand it. Yes, ppl will try to define it as some sudden hormonal imbalance...which may definitely be true at a physical level, but really how does it help an individual learn about love, know what love is?

For someone who is sceptical of the role of chance, you are very dependent on it to find accurate truths about the universe.

I think you misunderstand me there. Firstly, I do not believe that there is any absolute (accurate) truth. I believe that, just like right and wrong, truth and its nature changes in time, space, perspective, and context. You see our universe is deliberately relative. There are no absolutes in our universe. Absolutes have no purpose in the larger scheme of things. Oh and I do have place for chance quite a lot of it in fact. But the chance I am referring to is more like choice. So that way, yes, I don't believe that there is something like absolute co-incidence.

Please interpret the above as different from physical truth. The physical nature of stuff is right in front to see. I am not even coming anywhere near that. Because if I wanted to know more about the physical aspects, then there is enough knowledge available...opinions are not necessary. Knowledge shuts the case. So when you say I am dependent on chance, did you mean it in the physical sense or non-physical? if its non-physical I've explained it in the previous para.

You can imagine just about anything, so without testing those imaginings you rely on chance for them to be correct.

Imagining things is not so easy...trust me, it is way way harder than you think. The problem we are facing here is that, you are viewing my argument from your safe-zone which is physical and I am viewing my argument from the non-physical zone. Hence the aspect of testing and all comes in.

Why not, sometimes, just allow your mind to open to a different possibility and you will see what seems impossible may actually common place. Because that is exactly the process of how we have learned our sciences in the last 2-3 centuries. Meditation people said was woo until more and more people open mindedly tried it and basically said balls to the scientific community, it works for me I am doing it. Hypnotism was woo earlier but many doctors use it as a valid tool to uncover traumatic experiences. Could they explain these two phenomenon physically when the western world first heard of them? No. Even now I am not sure they have a proper physical explanation for that but the people who are open to an existence beyond physicality find it easy to relate to the concept of energies in the body.

At the end of the day, some historical awareness of how all modern sciences including physics, archeology, math, etc were born gives us a very important default doubt. See the forefathers of the modern sciences believed in a 6000 yr old Earth. There were scientists everywhere who challenged them and it is sad but true that when the new discoveries or theories were put forward by European scientists they were more readily accepted. However, the same theories which were mentioned in ancient texts of non European cultures were conveniently hidden or pushed to the back. We can't do anything about it now. Once the more modern and open minded scientists realized this they overcompensated and made science a totally physical thing. But things are changing. Whether we like it or not. Many people are beginning to realize that what they feel is not necessarily hallucination. Whether all this is mass-stupidity or mass-enlightenment changes in time, space, perspective, and context

The limitations of logic and the scientific process are there to whittle down the likely possibilities to make it more likely that we hit upon an accurate understanding.

I have a different opinion here...I think that it would be beneficial for humanity if our scientific and logical tools are "enablers" rather than "controllers". Controllers limit us whereas Enablers help us express the infinity in our unique ways.

[Paolo]

If you imagine time to be a not necessarily linear entity then all happens at the same time and yet each point in time is unique. See these are all very esoteric stuff and I know there is way too much resistance to it here.

I am fully aware that time is not linear – that is demonstrable with two atomic clocks and a fast plane. There is good evidence that time is non-linear. However, this does not mean that “all happens at the same time and yet each point in time is unique” – that is something you are assuming with no evidence, from something for which there is evidence - in logic we’d call this a non sequitur, meaning that it does not follow. Herein lies the problem with arguing from a subjective perspective – there is nothing that supports the argument apart from your opinion/imagination, which is of limited validity when applied to the wider world outside of your own experience.

Let me correct your misinterpretation, I do not claim them as "evidence".

You’re not really correcting my misinterpretation here, since I didn’t suggest that you do claim anything as evidence. What I say is that you rely entirely on your imagination, without bothering to check any evidence.

That's the key here. See I believe that the universe lies in the mind of the perceiver. And a concept like this, an entity so subjective basically loses its intrigue, its character, its magnetism if we try to explain it in objective ways.

You can believe what you like, but without something to support your beliefs your ideas are not of much value to the wider world. Science is valuable and powerful precisely because it attempts to draw objective conclusions with broad applicability.

You see our universe is deliberately relative. There are no absolutes in our universe. Absolutes have no purpose in the larger scheme of things.

What about absolute zero? There’s a universal absolute for you. You seem to be conflating the universe that we inhabit with the universe as you perceive it. The two are utterly different things. Your concept of the universe is deliberately subjective, possibly because you value subjectivity and feel that objectivity is unobtainable and undesirable because it cheapens individual experience. But that is not the real physical universe – however much you tie yourself in knots denying physical and objective realities they do exist, which is why people starve to death and bullets can’t be stopped with the power of the mind.

Imagining things is not so easy...trust me, it is way way harder than you think. The problem we are facing here is that, you are viewing my argument from your safe-zone which is physical and I am viewing my argument from the non-physical zone. Hence the aspect of testing and all comes in.

Trust me I know how hard imagining things is. I’m not sure what you mean by a physical ‘safe-zone’ the non-physical seems a far safer zone to be making opinions from, since those opinions can’t be refuted, because they can’t be tested. The non-physical zone is a wonderful realm of fantasy where ideas can be moulded without the constraints imposed by physics or reality.

Why not, sometimes, just allow your mind to open to a different possibility and you will see what seems impossible may actually common place.

I actually do this, it’s called imagination. The hard part is drawing the line between imagination and fantasy, which is something that happens by testing the imagined concepts against reality. Fantasy has a place in our conceptual universe (where it can be enjoyable) but it’s a poor feature of the real world, where it can often cause harm.

Because that is exactly the process of how we have learned our sciences in the last 2-3 centuries.

Yes, it’s called trial and error. If you can’t try it to find out whether you’re in error, then it’s not science.

The limitations of logic and the scientific process are there to whittle down the likely possibilities to make it more likely that we hit upon an accurate understanding.

I have a different opinion here...I think that it would be beneficial for humanity if our scientific and logical tools are "enablers" rather than "controllers". Controllers limit us whereas Enablers help us express the infinity in our unique ways.

Our scientific and logical tools are indeed enablers – they enable us to recognise bullshit and reject it, that’s what makes them so valuable.

[Nirvanam]

I am fully aware that time is not linear – that is demonstrable with two atomic clocks and a fast plane. There is good evidence that time is non-linear. However, this does not mean that “all happens at the same time and yet each point in time is unique” – that is something you are assuming with no evidence, from something for which there is evidence - in logic we’d call this a non sequitur, meaning that it does not follow. Herein lies the problem with arguing from a subjective perspective – there is nothing that supports the argument apart from your opinion/imagination, which is of limited validity when applied to the wider world outside of your own experience.

Again, what you are referring to is the physical aspect of time. What I am referring to is an esoteric, metaphysical aspect of time wherein all that has to happen, all that has happened, all that is happening is all in the same moment. There is no time than now, and there is no place than here. Now, I don't expect you to even read out what I wrote. Because that is your choice, and you are perfectly right as you choose to be.

The reference to validity and all is irrelevant right now. Both of us know that neither can you "prove" your opinion is valid nor can I do that. And if you'd strictly go by current logic, then there is nothing like more valid or less valid. Our logic deals with 0 and 1. it has no place for subjectivity. And you'd already be aware of that so I won't expect to find your post that this particular argument seems more valid than that.

Let me correct your misinterpretation, I do not claim them as "evidence".

You’re not really correcting my misinterpretation here, since I didn’t suggest that you do claim anything as evidence. What I say is that you rely entirely on your imagination, without bothering to check any evidence.

Evidence of what, Paolo? Chance? Chance is not evidence...it is a pseudo to mean "we don't know how or why it happened". We'll again go back into that discussion of why that scientific process can be manipulated to suit the manipulator. I'll choose a different null hypothesis and you choose a different null hypothesis and we both can basically close shop for the rest of the life of the universe....no one will be able to disprove us.

I want you to consider this: there are objective phenomenon and there are subjective phenomenon. I have not disagreed with you on any objective phenomenon...in case I have and you have corrected me I have said 'my bad and thanks for making me learn'. Now on subjective phenomenon, my first question to you: do you agree that subjective phenomenon require subjective criteria/basis of understanding (yes knowing underlying physical effects helps but the core of the subjectivity in the phenomenon needs subjective inference). Ex - to appreciate the beauty of a rainbow, you need to invoke that part of your being which resonates with the natural beauty of a rainbow (you may be aware that there are 7 colors that form and they are of so and so frequencies and may detect that the yellow band is slightly thinner than the other). However once you start getting into such analyzing you would have lost the moment.

That's the key here. See I believe that the universe lies in the mind of the perceiver. And a concept like this, an entity so subjective basically loses its intrigue, its character, its magnetism if we try to explain it in objective ways.

You can believe what you like, but without something to support your beliefs your ideas are not of much value to the wider world. Science is valuable and powerful precisely because it attempts to draw objective conclusions with broad applicability.

That statement is arising out of a misunderstanding. I am not out here to tell you or the scientific community what I think is right...that what I believe in is the "truth"...if you noticed very often I say that I don't believe in any finality..everything changes in time, space, perspective, and context. So what I believe today may change tomorrow and change back to what it is today..who knows? I am aware and I openly welcome this amazing quality of change. Change is eternal and I love it.

My opinion is that science has restricted itself by limiting itself to objective, physical, materialistic stuff only. What you may not realize is that the real thinkers who are at the fore front of discovering things and showing to the rest of us how things work rarely restrict themselves to the very narrow rules of science. Every theory arises as a fantasy in a way, and seems totally ridiculous to the ppl around until the time when the linear logic is established.

I don't think you are advocating that science should do away with the creative/imaginative faculty in its pursuit of the truth. However, if you are, then may I know why?

You see our universe is deliberately relative. There are no absolutes in our universe. Absolutes have no purpose in the larger scheme of things.

What about absolute zero? There’s a universal absolute for you. You seem to be conflating the universe that we inhabit with the universe as you perceive it. The two are utterly different things.

Fair enough. I was speaking from my perspective of the universe being more than just the physical thing that you and I perceive with out bodies.

Your concept of the universe is deliberately subjective, possibly because you value subjectivity and feel that objectivity is unobtainable and undesirable because it cheapens individual experience.

That makes me feel that you haven't observed my posts in the forum and what I generally opine. I believe that we humans have 2 main faculties...could be polarities of the same thing: rationality and creativity. When I was growing up I was a very highly rational person...you know there was this test developed based on 25 questions...I had something like 18 answers showing my inclination towards logic. This is during school days. I would over-analyze which would affect my ability to learn to play the guitar. My friends would tell me 'just dont play the scales try to say something man'. I am like say something???? Now that experience taught me the value of being creative...the moment I felt music inside me I was able to produce it on the guitar. So I've seen both sides yielding benefits for me even before I finished my college. When I did my MBA the big topic of debate was "is management an art or a science"....I learned the ways and nuances of society. But to my benefit in the last 7-8 yrs I have opened up myself quite a lot, introspective even and I have realized the choice is ours....the world will more often than not present things as if you have to choose this OR that. I learned to let go of that psychological inertia and make it this AND that.
So you see, as I stand today, I have neither less affection for logic nor for creativity. I try to not to balance the two but to remove the need for balancing...to extend both to their maximums that I know of at that point in time.

What you see is this: and I am being very honest about this...not sure if people will like me for it, but I a not sure if many would be honest to admit it if they did it. I live a process of continuous wisdom gaining. How do I do that? I can go to a theological society and talk subjective stuff there, or come to a forum like this and talk only objective stuff like a = 3b + 4ac - 2f. it does not help. Unless I put myself in vulnerable situations how will I know what works for me So I become the subjective debater in a forum like this and an objective debater in a subjective forum. At the end of the day the more you scrutinize yourself the more conviction you'd have in your beliefs.

But that is not the real physical universe – however much you tie yourself in knots denying physical and objective realities they do exist,

I am not denying that at all...I dont know why you'd think so. Again, psychological inertia, Paolo...just coz I am arguing in a particular way, you are associating some of the characteristics that you might have encountered with someone else who argued similarly and extending it to me. Please dont do that.

which is why people starve to death and bullets can’t be stopped with the power of the mind.

unnecessary, don't you think?

Imagining things is not so easy...trust me, it is way way harder than you think. The problem we are facing here is that, you are viewing my argument from your safe-zone which is physical and I am viewing my argument from the non-physical zone. Hence the aspect of testing and all comes in.

Trust me I know how hard imagining things is. I’m not sure what you mean by a physical ‘safe-zone’ the non-physical seems a far safer zone to be making opinions from, since those opinions can’t be refuted, because they can’t be tested. The non-physical zone is a wonderful realm of fantasy where ideas can be moulded without the constraints imposed by physics or reality.

See again you are viewing this as a right-wrong debate when it clearly is not. It is a discussion on what opinions we have. The participants need not have to prove why they believe what they believe. Because each one's belief would be no closer or no farer from the truth. Why? Because the topic of contention is subjective.

You know you could try this, instead of trying to find faulty logic in my arguments, first accept that I have not chosen to provide any logic here. This will ensure that you dont waste your time in finding faults when I myself am telling you they are faulty. Once that is clear in the mind, ask yourself if you'd like to understand my perspective and by stepping into my shoes and viewing the universe would it give you anything new: maybe horrible, maybe pleasant, maybe normal (this is what I do when I first read your posts...it helps me become better at how to construct a logical argument, and of course helps me to catch some weak points like the 20 coins game ;-) )

Why not, sometimes, just allow your mind to open to a different possibility and you will see what seems impossible may actually common place.

I actually do this, it’s called imagination. The hard part is drawing the line between imagination and fantasy, which is something that happens by testing the imagined concepts against reality. Fantasy has a place in our conceptual universe (where it can be enjoyable) but it’s a poor feature of the real world, where it can often cause harm.

I used to think the same way until I was shown and later demonstrably learned the power of fantasy in breaking a person's psychological inertia and barriers. There are many Principles of Fantasy..Scientific Fantasy...lol. That's the key I think...our minds are so full of possibilities and capabilities the only thing that stops us from achieving things is we ourselves, that too our learned responses thru childhood, etc.

Because that is exactly the process of how we have learned our sciences in the last 2-3 centuries.

Yes, it’s called trial and error. If you can’t try it to find out whether you’re in error, then it’s not science.

And Trial and Error methodology has been shown to be the least efficient way of creating/inventing/innovating things.

The limitations of logic and the scientific process are there to whittle down the likely possibilities to make it more likely that we hit upon an accurate understanding.

I have a different opinion here...I think that it would be beneficial for humanity if our scientific and logical tools are "enablers" rather than "controllers". Controllers limit us whereas Enablers help us express the infinity in our unique ways.

Our scientific and logical tools are indeed enablers – they enable us to recognise bullshit and reject it, that’s what makes them so valuable.

And whose bullshit is it? Again, on subjective aspect of life everything is bullshit to one or the other person, AND yet they each of those piles would be chocolate cakes to few others. At the end of the day, the Law of Conservation of Chocolate Cake (or Bullshit) holds true. ....lol


Paolo, please don't try to show that you are right, I am wrong, or I am right, you are wrong. Why not just understand each others' perspectives and let them be. Why get defensive? (I thought u were but if you weren't then my apologies for mentioning it)

[Paolo]

Paolo, please don't try to show that you are right, I am wrong, or I am right, you are wrong. Why not just understand each others' perspectives and let them be. Why get defensive? (I thought u were but if you weren't then my apologies for mentioning it)

Dude, I think I do understand your perspective, I just don't agree with it. As to letting it be, I'd be happy to do so, except that this is a forum for discussion and you can't expect to post your thoughts without them being discussed.

I certainly don't intend to come across as defensive, but I also don't see any value in just saying 'yeah, ok, whatever' when I disagree with your opinion - that would make a very dull discussion. I know I'm not about to change your mind - you are happy with your view of the universe and aren't about to change that view, however, you are not about to change my view without some good evidence or at least a logically consistent argument in which assumptions are minimised. That leaves us at an impasse when it comes to discussion, since we are arguing to no clear purpose. This is something that has been noted in past threads and it's why quite a lot of people on TH don't bother to engage in such discussions - it doesn't lead anywhere and the people involved just get frustrated and end up entrenching their views rather than expanding them. In short, it's a waste of time.

[Nirvanam]

Dude, I think I do understand your perspective, I just don't agree with it. As to letting it be, I'd be happy to do so, except that this is a forum for discussion and you can't expect to post your thoughts without them being discussed.

I certainly don't intend to come across as defensive, but I also don't see any value in just saying 'yeah, ok, whatever' when I disagree with your opinion - that would make a very dull discussion. I know I'm not about to change your mind - you are happy with your view of the universe and aren't about to change that view, however, you are not about to change my view without some good evidence or at least a logically consistent argument in which assumptions are minimised. That leaves us at an impasse when it comes to discussion, since we are arguing to no clear purpose. This is something that has been noted in past threads and it's why quite a lot of people on TH don't bother to engage in such discussions - it doesn't lead anywhere and the people involved just get frustrated and end up entrenching their views rather than expanding them. In short, it's a waste of time.

Of course, this forum is meant for us to debate each other. But the point I am trying to make is that, we are dealing with a subjective topic. Now, given that a topic is subjective it necessarily has no right or wrong answers. The inertia I find at TH is the tendency of establishing something as either right or dismissing it off as wrong/false. My involvement in the forum is to learn from the others, how they think and then analyze if it would be helpful for me, given my own psychological inertia, to adopt those. And of course if someone, while reading my arguments finds resonance I'll be happy. But I am not seeking that.

I am for debating but I just expect the debaters to respect each other and not get into ridicule and all (not that you do). Ridicule has its place no doubt. But when educated people converse over a topic for long they deserve that respect to and for each other. After all the opposite person has kept us interested, has given us a reason to continue the conversation, right?

There are some whose default stance is ridicule, some whose default stance is to first listen, some whose default stance is to speak first-hear later, and all other tendencies. While I don't like th default ridicule chaps, I understand that they play a part in my experience. After all without them how would I experience what does being ridiculed mean? Without everyone else, I do not exist (metaphysical thought).

[Dave B]

Excellent "Frontiers" prog on Radio 4 last night on making artificial life and new insights into the type of primordial environment that may have started it all off:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... _Creation/