Jump to content
Science Forums

Life as an accident?


Recommended Posts

mmmm....seldom? that's too often for me.
I scarcely meant the word literally. ;)

 

:hyper: en garde! :scratchchin:

 

I have never heard anyone say: "This is the damage that yesterday's fluke caused." In my humble books, fluke is the term that distinguishes between accidental success and accidental disaster/failure.

 

mmmm...well, i don't care much for such constructions as "happy accident"; oxymorons they are. :turtle:

 

is there any negative connotation to emergence that you can think of?:scratchchin:

 

Yes, of course: emergency! :hyper:

 

well played. :D :D

 

a rose by any other name
...came just as much by chance. Chaos by any other name works just as randomly. A lottery win, befallen on any other participant, is just as fortunate...

 

And yet, mathematicians study catastrophe and chaos.

 

i did forget to cover modest's bet on chance. :doh: i concede the points. :doh: :eek: :lol: while wolfram is often terribly dry & terse, it's nice to see them say there that there is little agreement on the definition of "chaos". seems we've come full circle. :rose: aint life funny. :steering:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mmmm...well, i don't care much for such constructions as "happy accident"; oxymorons they are. :scratchchin:
Oxymorons if you consider accident to only mean something infaust. This would, if it were so, make it wrong to include it in the meaning of fluke.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oxymorons if you consider accident to only mean something infaust. This would, if it were so, make it wrong to include it in the meaning of fluke.

 

again i concede your point, though i don't favor it. :eek: :hyper: while checking to see if you spelled "infaust" correctly i decided to reread the definition for "accident" and found that if i scrolled a bit i found this definition. :clue:

3. Logic A circumstance or attribute that is not essential to the nature of something
accident - definition of accident by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

 

i find this specific definition in full accord with the op's intent & retract my objections to its application. :lol: so thens; life as an emergent accident. :idea: i can live with that.

:earth:

:agree:

/forums/images/smilies/banana_sign.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed that's the original meaning of the word, I kinda had in mind to say so except that in English it has come to be meant so differently, as so often happens.

 

Another wordy to keepy in mindey is fortuitous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always thought of the idea that life is an accident as a curious idea until now. … The only question then becomes 'How did it get up there in the first place?'
At this point, you are not asking whether or not it is an accident but rather for an explanation as to how such a thing occurred. Rather a different question.
"accident" carries a negative connotation that makes it an unfitting term here.
Sorry Turtle, but “unfitting” isn’t really a decent argument and “emergence”, though I would be moved to agree with you, seems to me to hide the real underlying issue. It is important to understand exactly what brings about the significance of emergence; an issue I suspect is lost on most.
How about fluke?
As Qfwfq commented in his latest post,
I kinda had in mind to say so except that in English it has come to be meant so differently, as so often happens.
English is a living language: i.e., meanings change almost as a daily process. Wait until you are older Qfwfq, it gets worse with time.

 

And Vox, I have not the slightest idea as to what goes on in your mind!

All nature is but art unknown to thee—all chance direction, which thou canst not see
Is nature actually “an art” or is it convincing others one knows “the real art” the actual art here? (The act of preaching comes to mind!) We perhaps cannot see “all chance” direction; but perhaps we can think about the possibilities. By the way, that is the central issue of all my posts.

 

But really, no one has actually taken the trouble to discuss the issue brought up by paigetheoracle. Essentially the question is, can the existence of a specific pattern be called an accident? I suggest that, if the pattern requires only a finite number of elements, the answer is no. There is a whole field of mathematics which revolves around such questions and, from my readings (which are obviously not as educated as I would like) I get the definite impression that, if the number of possibilities are sufficiently large, there actually exist such things as “unavoidable patterns”. I think some of you might learn a little if you were to read a little on Ramsey Theory. Or perhaps just google “unavoidable patterns”. There is a lot of stuff there.

 

I might add that my posts on this forum consist almost entirely of examining the required relationships in patterns in general. Life is no accident. If anything exists, it seems everything is inevitable. (So long as the pattern satisfies my fundamental equation :ideamaybenot: ) :sherlock:

 

Have fun – Dick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait until you are older Qfwfq, it gets worse with time.
I'm already old enough to see it happening! I've seen you making some fine contributions too!

 

Dick, do you consider the universe to be a finite collection of elements?

 

Suppose you give a chimp a keyboard and induce it to type away. What number of keystrokes would be necessary, in order to be sure it will type out The Rime of the Ancyent Marinere sooner or later?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Qfwfq, long time no see; nice to hear from you again. I was beginning to suspect you had put me on your ignore list.

I'm already old enough to see it happening! I've seen you making some fine contributions too!
I presume you are referring to my statement, “English is a living language: i.e., meanings change almost as a daily process”. But I don't really follow your assessment that I am the one making the contributions; unless you are referring to my willingness to go along with others.

 

I once made a post on the value of vagueness in the English language to which I had hoped to post a reference here; however, I could not find it. Sorry, I did run across another post you should perhaps read.

Resolution of this issue is exactly the driving issue of almost all my posts on this forum: exactly how do we manage to comprehend our experiences at all. Every year, millions of new fertilized eggs arrive on the scene knowing absolutely nothing of the universe around them. They begin possessing with utterly no mental model of the universe (not even of their own senses) and yet in a few short years, they manage to solve a problem the scientific community long ago declared impossible: they come up with a mental model their universe, they manage to model the source of totally undefined data (the universe is undefined until they comprehend it) transcribed by an undefined process (their senses, which are only defined after the model is created). :turtle:

 

I have no idea how this is actually done; but I do know how it could be done: I can show a logical solution to that very problem. If you are interested in knowing an answer, I suggest you take a look at my discussion with "turtle" in the thread " Defining the nature of rational discussion!" ;)

 

By the way, do "we all share the same world" or is that just an assumption we make? The question is a lot deeper than it appears. :earth:

Though I think it would be of benefit for you to read the entire post, it is that last sentence (not underlined in the original) which I think really comes to bear in this thread.
Dick, do you consider the universe to be a finite collection of elements?
Qfwfq, I have utterly no idea of what it is that we are speaking of when we use the term “the universe”; in fact, that is one of the most fundamental axioms of my fundamental equation. What I do know is that my knowledge of “the universe” consists of a finite collection elements at the very best! In fact, it could all be a pure illusion actually consisting of absolutely nothing except my thought (and define thought if you can). Anyone who pretends they know the correct answers to such questions is simply lying to themselves.
Suppose you give a chimp a keyboard and induce it to type away. What number of keystrokes would be necessary, in order to be sure it will type out The Rime of the Ancyent Marinere sooner or later?
Far more than he could ever type in his or my lifetime (or anyone else who's existence obeyed my fundamental equation). That number far exceeds the stability requirements embedded in the solutions: i.e., a physical structure could perhaps come to do it but the identification "chimp" and/or "keyboard" would certainly not be applicable. Just as a back of the envelope calculation, I would expect somewhere around 1050 strokes (I get that from time and space considerations). That is based upon the assumption that it has actually happened and its existence is not an illusion in our minds. :moon:

 

I really was surprised to find your post. Buffy, coldcreation, lawcat, and Tormod have all attached their thanks to my “Laying out the representation to be solved” thread which I have interpreted to indicate that they find the presentation understandable; however, I don't have any evidence you have even read it. Though I find your struggles to understand or interpret me difficult to comprehend, I still have a very high opinion of your judgment.

 

I realize that is entirely my fault as I have continually fallen short of making myself clear. Anssi is able to follow me only because he has himself confronted exactly the problem I am attacking before he ever met me, not because my presentation was clear. My interactions with Anssi have made my difficulties very evident to me and I now understand that these things are not easy to make clear. :fluffy:

 

I would really appreciate your comments on the opening post of that thread. :sherlock:

 

Thanks for your attention -- Dick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I once made a post on the value of vagueness in the English language
I remember once even coming across a false example you had given, but I wasn't in the mood for pointiong it out.

 

What I do know is that my knowledge of “the universe” consists of a finite collection elements at the very best!
That sure is good grounds for one to assert that the occurrence of life on this planet was inevitable! :sherlock:

 

Anyone who pretends they know the correct answers to such questions is simply lying to themselves.
Almost as much as pretending they can say what must happen outside of Plato's cave?

 

Far more than he could ever type in his or my lifetime (or anyone else who's existence obeyed my fundamental equation). That number far exceeds the stability requirements embedded in the solutions: i.e., a physical structure could perhaps come to do it but the identification "chimp" and/or "keyboard" would certainly not be applicable. Just as a back of the envelope calculation, I would expect somewhere around 1050 strokes (I get that from time and space considerations).
Yes, it might even be vaguely comparable to the molecular circumstances for life to have begun and continued lastingly.

 

Buffy, coldcreation, lawcat, and Tormod have all attached their thanks to my “Laying out the representation to be solved” thread which I have interpreted to indicate that they find the presentation understandable; however, I don't have any evidence you have even read it.
I s'pose those folks could afford the time and effort. I came across that post very recently and I haven't so far read it.

 

Though I find your struggles to understand or interpret me difficult to comprehend, I still have a very high opinion of your judgment.
The last time I addressed a point by Anssi, he replied in a manner that I might have been willing to critically examine but you fell back into a usual kind of reponse that changed my mind. Yes, you have trouble making yourself clear perhaps even because you put in too great an effort instead of a much finer tuned one. It seems like the more folks find your discourse difficult to follow, the more and the harder you bang your head against walls instead of finding the door and the key to the lock.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Qfwfq, I was sadly disappointed with your response. I wouldn't bother answering your depreciations except that I feel I owe a response to others reading this.

I remember once even coming across a false example you had given, but I wasn't in the mood for pointiong it out.
Respect would lead me to point out false examples if I saw them and I would expect any “staff administrator” to at least have a little respect for those who post here.
That sure is good grounds for one to assert that the occurrence of life on this planet was inevitable! :P
I never made any such assertion. If I were to consider the issue, I would suggest that there are many things required for life to exist: i.e., for life to occur on this planet, it would be inevitable that the planet would first satisfy a great number of very limiting constraints. I would have expected someone like you to comprehend the difference between the two views.

 

Would you seriously refer to the fact that entities consisting of mostly water would be found a planet where free water was present as a fluke? Think about it a little.

Almost as much as pretending they can say what must happen outside of Plato's cave?
Again, you accuse me of making allusions I never made. It is the physics community who pretend they can say what must happen outside of Plato's cave. I concern myself only with with the internal consistency of explanations themselves: i.e., the rather simple concept that any explanation of anything must at least be consistent with the things it is explaining. You apparently think I am talking about physics when I am not. Physics only comes up because the community makes a great number of claims as to its “exactness” when it is actually quite a sloppy presentation.

 

If you ever took the trouble to follow what I am doing, you would comprehend that I am doing absolutely nothing more than creating a tautology. You keep trying to attribute claims which I never make. What I often bring up is the rather astounding fact that my tautology produces a broad range of relationships which are put forth by the physics community as a defense of the validity of their claims. Their position is no more tenable than the religious zealots of the dark ages (which were strong positions prior to understanding probability).

I was trained as a physicist so most everyone presumes I should be discussing physics. When I was young, I thought I was a physicist but when I came forward with my discovery, physicists said it was philosophy, philosophers said it was mathematics and mathematicians said it was physics. No one chose to see it as of any interest to them. I have come to the conclusion that the physicists were right; it is essentially a philosophical proof as it is a tautological construct. It has nothing to do with the field of mathematics as all the mathematics used constitutes well known relationships. And, as it makes utterly no predictions and does no more than establish constraints upon one's personal expectations required by internal consistency of our world view, it clearly is not physics.
Qfwfq, I could be wrong but it appears to me that you feel professionally threatened.
I s'pose those folks could afford the time and effort. I came across that post very recently and I haven't so far read it.
And I doubt you will. I suspect you will do little more than scan it at best. Your interest is clearly not in understanding what I am saying but rather in finding reasons not to take my arguments seriously. It is quite evident that you don't find what you think my conclusions are consistent with what appeals to you.
The last time I addressed a point by Anssi, he replied in a manner that I might have been willing to critically examine but you fell back into a usual kind of reponse that changed my mind.
So I haven't treated you with sufficient respect; it that the problem? I am sorry about that!
... the more and the harder you bang your head against walls instead of finding the door and the key to the lock.
I have found the door and the key to the lock and, to date, Anssi is the only other person to spot that door. I have been trying to roll out the key to him and I think, at this point, he pretty well understands the whole thing.

 

You do bring up a curious question in my mind. When Buffy, coldcreation, lawcat, and Tormod attached their thanks, they made no other comments. It is possible that they were thanking me for freeing them from any interest in following my thoughts further. If that is the case, I suppose both Anssi and I are both wasting our time. I would really like to know how people on this forum feel about my posts.

 

Dick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Buffy, coldcreation, lawcat, and Tormod attached their thanks, they made no other comments. It is possible that they were thanking me for freeing them from any interest in following my thoughts further. If that is the case, I suppose both Anssi and I are both wasting our time. I would really like to know how people on this forum feel about my posts.

Dick

 

First, when I thanked you without response I meant to let you know that I read your post and have nothing further to add to discussion.

 

Second, I follow your discussions with Anssi to the extent that it does not involve math. I take your math as true, and focus on the meaning behind it. Lately I have not been following it because it does not pique my interest at present. I find that your fundamental thinking is completely opposite of mine, so its interesting to read in which direction you take your philosophy from premises that I do not agree with. On the other hand, I find some of your long posts unstructured and hard to follow.

 

Finally, I stopped replying out of courtesy because I have nothing to add, and you specifically asked to keep your posts clean of impertinent objections, and I have a feeling that any of my objections would be viewed as impertinent. So, imo you are not wasting your time posting with Anssi, but I feel like I would be if I replied. So we can all go our merry way.

 

I also agree with Qfwfq as far as the correct doors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

You do bring up a curious question in my mind. When Buffy, coldcreation, lawcat, and Tormod attached their thanks, they made no other comments. It is possible that they were thanking me for freeing them from any interest in following my thoughts further. If that is the case, I suppose both Anssi and I are both wasting our time. I would really like to know how people on this forum feel about my posts.

 

Dick

 

i think you're logically mistaken on the 4th sentence; but then perhaps it's purely subjective. while your writing may be a waste of the time of others, it is a fallacy to conclude it is a waste of your own time. :moon:

 

on the last question, i think your posts are overlong to the point of deterring readers. moreover, you have a further deterring habit, lo-these-many-years of explaining explanations, of making snide ad hominems whenever you feel someone is not agreeing with you, refers you to a source, or comments on your tone. i suspect you'll offer me no less this time than for my past efforts. (please actually spare me/us your retort. you asked, i told. fini) whether you hear it or not doc, the universe is laughing behind your back. :eek_big:

 

carry on o accidental life forms; carry on. . . . . . . :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Qfwfq, I was sadly disappointed with your response.
Just like any time somebody doesn't agree with you.

 

I have found the door and the key to the lock and, to date, Anssi is the only other person to spot that door.
That wasn't my point. The door and lock isn't your fundamental equation, it is the way to get your ideas across to other people. If Anssi is the only person in the world, you haven't found the door and the key.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally, I stopped replying out of courtesy because I have nothing to add, and you specifically asked to keep your posts clean of impertinent objections, and I have a feeling that any of my objections would be viewed as impertinent. So, imo you are not wasting your time posting with Anssi, but I feel like I would be if I replied.
I don't remember using the word “impertinent”. It certainly wasn't the emotion I felt. Your posts simply seemed continually off subject to me and it was pretty clear that you weren't interested in “exact” analysis.

 

In appreciation of your courtesy I have removed you from my ignore list. I do not enjoy having such a list as I do not like cutting myself off from other's opinions. I think everyone has a right to be heard but sometimes I have nothing to say about their concerns and you tend to fall into that category and you made a lot of posts. It was probably rude of me to place you on that list; please feel free to comment anytime you wish.

whether you hear it or not doc, the universe is laughing behind your back. :ohdear:
Yes, I am quite well aware that most people are of that opinion and am greatly saddened by it. And please don't think of this as a “retort” it is only an expression of my thoughts.
Just like any time somebody doesn't agree with you.
you should add “and isn't willing to discuss the subject". That is the aspect which really disappoints me.
That wasn't my point. The door and lock isn't your fundamental equation, it is the way to get your ideas across to other people. If Anssi is the only person in the world, you haven't found the door and the key.
I never said the door was the fundamental equation; the fundamental equation is a conclusion reached by looking behind that door. The door itself is realizing the existence of a very important question ignored by everyone. Anssi seems to be the only person to see the question. Once one asks that question, the answer is mere straight forward mathematics.

 

Bertrand Russell actually put the issue quite well.

"Too often it is said that there is no absolute truth, but only opinion and private judgment; that each of us is conditioned, in his view of the world, by his own peculiarities, his own taste and bias; that there is no external kingdom of truth to which, by patience and discipline, we may at last obtain admittance, but only truth for me, for you, for every separate person. By this habit of mind one of the chief ends of human effort is denied, and the supreme virtue of candor, of fearless acknowledgment of what is disappears from our moral vision. Of such skepticism mathematics is a perpetual reproof; for its edifices of truths stands unshakable and inexpungable to all the weapons of doubting cynicism."

Bertrand Russell, 1872-1970

 

Sorry about upsetting you all -- Dick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The door itself is realizing the existence of a very important question ignored by everyone.
No, the door is how to get your ideas across to other people and discuss them in a reasonable manner. It's my door, so I decide what it is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Turtle

whether you hear it or not doc, the universe is laughing behind your back. :rotfl:

Yes, I am quite well aware that most people are of that opinion and am greatly saddened by it. And please don't think of this as a “retort” it is only an expression of my thoughts.

 

Sorry about upsetting you all -- Dick

 

:hyper: i'm more vexed than upset. :hyper: clearly you failed again to read my previous post in this thread to which the back-laughing refers. you're not special in that regard; the universe is laughing behind all of our backs. :rotfl:

 

consider that two wrongs never make a right, but that three do. :crazy:

 

YouTube - National Lampoon-"Deteriorata" from the LP "Greatest Hits of the National Lampoon" WITH LYRICS! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJJBtmhRRl8

 

post script: so paige; what happened to you bro? have we shed any light on your query, or only blood. :doh:/:ohdear: :hyper:

...what if the fact that life can survive under the most adverse conditions, means that it is always waiting in the wings, to spring into action? ...
always is a very long time. :clock: fortuitously, with wings time flies. ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a message in that record which I've already been hearing in the past few years. It's a rather dangerous message for society and I've been seeing the effects of it all around me, as well as in the news...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...