Re: life vs materialism


NashtOn wrote:
SortingItOut wrote:
draco wrote:

Apparently life began on earth within 1000 years or so after the
earth cooled (maybe 1 million), ie relatively soon after the earth
cooled some form of life seems to have been present.
This suggests that life is part of the structure of existence itself.



That's quite a conclusion from a sample size of one.

Your conclusion implies that *every* planet in the universe had life
appear shortly after the planet cooled. Do you really believe that
happened? Do you have any evidence to support it?

Life are some of the odd dimensional space-forms, or equivalently
simplexes, ie fundamental domains of the discrete groups, which
naturally oscillate causing them to generate their own energy. So
perhaps a few stars do not generate their own energy.
The currently accepted paradigm cannot be trusted about how stars
generate their own energy, their predictions predict neutrinos which
are not seen, to account for this they altered their theory on
neutrinos, which still does not conform to the data, but did not alter
their theory about how stars generate energy, which clearly must also
be changed. This is an example of the mathematical opportunism which
plagues theories which follow data as all probability based theories
must.
Thus the oscillating space-form theory in which a (macroscopic)
space-form's spectral flows, which also represent metric space states,
are pushed into one another causing anti-matter to come into contact
hence the energy generation. Likewise there are some planets that do
not generate energy, but if they do generate energy it would be
evidence in favor of the planet being alive. this idea creates the
morphogenetic field for the earth's living system, a strong idea of
Gaia (sic).
Radioactivity is an example of a life form, here it is microscopic
oscillating space-forms causing the energy generation, but it is the
same mechanism. When one has a geometry and a consistent mathematical
structure things become both easy and difficult. Now inter-species
commmunication takes on a new light. Typically we communicate as
Columbus communicated we want (1) some lowly life form to command, (2)
gain some piece of information for petty self interest, eg new
tyechnology, steal their treasures (3) ask how's the weather: all based
on a very limited knowledge of existence, materialism breeds
seflishness, or (4) seek and share knowledge about life's relation to
infinity



This is an idea that implies that materialism is wrong.



How so?



None-the-less all of our natural sciences (physicl biological etc)
are based on the idea of
materialism.
That is, material defines existence, whereas space, time, and
solutions to differential equations, are used to describe the
properties of "our" material existence. Within this model, material is
modeled as either a scalar quantity or a particle (string theory does
not qualify as a science yet). If material is modeled as a scalar then
this implies that the existence of higher dimensions would necessitate
that (interaction) potential energies be inverses of higher degree than
degree one.



What???



However, material can be given a geometric (non-local)
structure and in turn, would mean that higher degree inverse potentials
than (degree) one, do not exist,
ie higher dimensions can (and do) exist in macroscopic form.



Macroscopic? Does that mean we can see them?



Unfortunately, the traditional (above) idea of materialism has led
to a descriptive language of the physical world which is logically
inconsistent. Namely, physics is
based on the language of probability, but any material description in
physics
always includes an assumed geometry, even if that geometry is as simple
as a collision. However, probability and geometry are inconsistent
ideas because probability implies uncertainty relations, and these
uncertainty relations destroy the continuity properties of the
containing space within which (material) geometry exists.
This is likely the reason that the currently accepted paradigm of the
physical sciences is so hard to apply. Its most famous statements are
about
the many fundamental systems that are simply too difficult to describe,
eg
the nucleus composed of more than 3 particles is (simply) too difficult
to describe.
Materialism has led the physical sciences to extremely complicated
theories which seem to have no applications, with the possible
exception of nuclear bomb
engineering. Eg. The gravitational singularities of a spherically
symmetric space, and the standard model of elementary particle
collisions, blend together nicely to model a large explosion. Though,
even for bomb engineering, without a model of the nucleus, bigger
blasts seem to not be forth-coming.



So...you're thinking that with all that has been learned of physics
over the centuries, the only real application has been bombs?



In biology materialism leads to life being defined as either
material-scarcity and survival of the fittest, or as DNA and proteins,
which again seems to form into systems which are too complicated to
describe.
None-the-less living systems have control over themselves which implies
they possess a property which is something that must be an even more
elementary idea
than linearity, ie linear differential equations (which model systems
that are easy to control), and that property may well be flatness. (see
below)
There is a way in which to re-order the physical sciences in a manner
similar to how Copernicus re-ordered the Ptolemeic universe. Namely,
consider the spectral properties of metric spaces, ie use discrete
isometry
subgroups, instead of using the spectral properties of function spaces
when
describing physical systems and their spectral properties. Discrete
groups form geometric
space-forms, and (hyperbolic space-forms) have both stable spectral
properties, and they also have the property of being flat.
Surprisingly when this is done, ie pull the spectral description of
physical systems away from the spectral structures of functions spaces,
and instead place them on the space-form spectral-geometric properties
of discrete isometry subgroups, the new mathematics and physical
description encompass both the material properties of the world, along
with describing the patterns that can be interpreted to be the basic
structure of both
life and mind (or consciousness).



What applications have come from this?



This new basis for language transcends materialism.
It is the morphogenetic field that Turing was searching for.
for further descriptions see:
dracoblog.eponym.com/blog
also at other group sites
and also see books
www.trafford.com/03-1913
www.trafford.com/05-3038



I can't believe the bozos that are responding to the OP and most of all,
the quality of their responses.
Just because the shift away from materialism in science and physics in
particular, threatens their beloved faith in naturalism/materialism,
they react like 5 year-olds that had their candy taken away from them.

Too funny.


--
Nicolas

"The reason the theory of evolution is so controversial is that it is
the main scientific prop for scientific naturalism. Students first learn
that "evolution is a fact," and then they gradually learn more and more
about what that "fact" means. It means that all living things are the
product of mindless material forces such as chemical laws, natural
selection, and random variation. So God is totally out of the picture,
and humans (like everything else) are the accidental product of a
purposeless universe. Do you wonder why a lot of people suspect that
these claims go far beyond the available evidence?" Phillip E.Johnson,
The Church Of Darwin

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: life vs materialism
    ... This suggests that life is part of the structure of existence itself. ... This is an idea that implies that materialism is wrong. ... Namely, physics is ... instead of using the spectral properties of function spaces ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: life vs materialism
    ... This suggests that life is part of the structure of existence itself. ... Namely, physics is ... Materialism has led the physical sciences to extremely complicated ... instead of using the spectral properties of function spaces ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: life vs materialism
    ... This suggests that life is part of the structure of existence itself. ... The closest I know of to evidence against materialism ... approximated by the methods of material science. ... Namely, physics is ...
    (talk.origins)
  • life vs materialism
    ... Apparently life began on earth within 1000 years or so after the ... This is an idea that implies that materialism is wrong. ... Namely, physics is ... instead of using the spectral properties of function spaces ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Science, God, and Free Will
    ... Emergent Materialism asserts that the mind is irreducible (http:// ... Materialism doesn't have a convincing answer to the mind problem. ... conservation laws of physics aren't applicable to psychological ... phenomenon for which a complete physical explanation is not known. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading