It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by NorEaster
Originally posted by RobertPaulsim
In my opinion emergent systems [of evolution] are part of a collaboration towards unity.
Look at this (Heliosphere):
en.wikipedia.org...
how a star (dumbest ever entity of the cosmos) produces litterally a shield to prevent
frequent changes in DNA to enable stability to form higher sentient beings with evolution?
Its like the cosmos know things in advance.... IMHO intelligent design.
my 2 cents
edit on 17-2-2013 by RobertPaulsim because: (no reason given)
Do you have a link to the reference that suggests that this heliosphere isolates the entire region around the star to the extent of shielding potential DNA contamination? I'd be interested in reading that, as some of my work involves the establishment of examples (at many levels) of default Masculine and Feminine survival imperative expressions, and this seems like a classic Masculine survival imperative expression (Isolation). You'd be amazed at how redundant all of this stuff actually is, and at all levels. Not much of anything is truly original, but that's why it all works as well as it does. Only when you start getting into emergent sapience do you start seeing true originality and actual expressions of chaos. Beneath that - even in the most relatively original emergences - the basics are rigidly maintained and aggressively promoted. I'd be really curious concerning this heliosphere and what it blocks out, as well as what it restricts from freely escaping. Every holon has its "membrane", and I should think that a solar system would be no different.
Thanks for the heads up.
I saw a thread about goats that yell like humans, and that one was kicking total ass. There was a G-spot locator device thread too (I can't remember exactly where than one was) and it was totally ruling the traffic counts on the site where it sat.
I'm pretty hip to who the popular kids are wherever I am at the moment, and I'm pretty much okay with my relative slot in whatever hierarchy I'm engaging. I don't often let that affect my own interests.
Originally posted by NorEaster
Reductionism This reductionist understanding is very different from that usually implied by the term 'emergence', which typically intends that what emerges is more than the sum of the processes from which it emerges.
Originally posted by NorEaster
Again, you need to do some reading of serious physicists and not cartoon physicists. String theory is about 6 months away from being tossed aside by serious research. Multiverse theory isn't taken seriously at all, and after a couple years on this board, I was really surprised to discover that the real research activity out there isn't impressed with the talk of superposition, multiverses, 10+ dimensional theories, and the rest of that mystery load that dominates Youtube and the Discovery Channel.
Infinity is a singularity. Any singularity cannot share existence with any other singularity (so forget multiple infinities) since the existence of (at least) two "singularities" produces a duality of singularities. Bang - that notion is dead on arrival.
The mainstream media is just plain stupid, and the tech press is no better than any of the rest of it.
Again, you need to do some reading of serious physicists and not cartoon physicists
String theory is about 6 months away from being tossed aside by serious research.
Multiverse theory isn't taken seriously at all, and after a couple years on this board, I was really surprised to discover that the real research activity out there isn't impressed with the talk of superposition, multiverses, 10+ dimensional theories, and the rest of that mystery load that dominates Youtube and the Discovery Channel.
It's just bar talk for people who don't care about sports, cars, women, or politics. I don't have the time or interest in that tired voodoo metaphysics sh*t.
Im surprised you say multi verse theory isnt taken seriously, because I thought I just read a thread in which you predicted the existence of multiple realities, or one standard reality on which multiple universes can exist.
Originally posted by ImaFungi
Originally posted by NorEaster
Again, you need to do some reading of serious physicists and not cartoon physicists. String theory is about 6 months away from being tossed aside by serious research. Multiverse theory isn't taken seriously at all, and after a couple years on this board, I was really surprised to discover that the real research activity out there isn't impressed with the talk of superposition, multiverses, 10+ dimensional theories, and the rest of that mystery load that dominates Youtube and the Discovery Channel.
Im surprised you say multi verse theory isnt taken seriously, because I thought I just read a thread in which you predicted the existence of multiple realities, or one standard reality on which multiple universes can exist.
Oh and when I say the word universe, I mean the system we know made of matter and energy, particles and atoms, galaxies and space... that is thought to have had a beginning 14 billion years ago or so ( im not so sure about that). Do you think this universe had a beginning, and if so was it that recent? Do you think this universe (galaxies made of stars and planets and space) is the only one that exists? Do you think your idea of a ancient reality template, created this universe?
When I say the word reality, I mean this universe, and the potential for anything to exist beyond it (meaning this universe might not be the only system to exist in some grander ultimate reality).
Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by NorEaster
Infinity is a singularity. Any singularity cannot share existence with any other singularity (so forget multiple infinities) since the existence of (at least) two "singularities" produces a duality of singularities. Bang - that notion is dead on arrival.
By it's very nature, an Infinity would include all possibilities, no rules, no definitions, therefor multiple singularities would be able to exist simultaneously as part of all possible possibilities.
Putting rule and limits on an unlimited state/existence .... pointless.
String theory is about 6 months away from being tossed aside by serious research.
You said this like 2 years ago on a post, and string theory is still around. In fact I'm going to see if I can find it. In the mean time, I can't take that quote serious until I see for myself that the majority of Academia is in agreement that its BS. Hasn't happened yet.
Multiverse theory isn't taken seriously at all, and after a couple years on this board, I was really surprised to discover that the real research activity out there isn't impressed with the talk of superposition, multiverses, 10+ dimensional theories, and the rest of that mystery load that dominates Youtube and the Discovery Channel.
YEah OK. It is taken very seriously by various branches of Academia and I propose within a little while it will be common fact.
Our Universe at Home within a Larger Universe
So suggests IU theoretical physicist's wormhole research.
They have ways to quantify Multi-verses as factual. It's on the way. I also Love how the Buddhists actually Numbered the amount of Universes within the Singularity. More and more science is getting into alignment with Mysticism.
It's just bar talk for people who don't care about sports, cars, women, or politics. I don't have the time or interest in that tired voodoo metaphysics sh*t.
HA, I Love it!!!! I pull out all the recent findings and discoveries in science that Threaten your Emergent Systems God as the end all be all, and what do you do? You stoop down to name calling "cartoon physicists, not taken serious, or not legit because its on youtube or MSM."
Ohhhhhhh kaaayyyyyyyy.
Looks like you've entered the Religion and Apologetics of Emergent Systems. Anything that threatens it, is of the devil(cartoons, MSM, Youtube, etc)
Time to add you to the list of "ATS'ers to not take serious."
Peace in the Middle East. Have fun with all that dogma
In Reply to Imafungi:
Im surprised you say multi verse theory isnt taken seriously, because I thought I just read a thread in which you predicted the existence of multiple realities, or one standard reality on which multiple universes can exist.
It ain't worth it brother. If it doesn't resonate with Emergent Systems, or threatens it, he will bash it. I've gotten him a few times and it results in comedic dogma. Not worth it. Just stay flexible with what science finds.
Singularity means only one. Multiple singularities is like Jumbo Shrimp. An oxymoron.
"Demons" are still around too. So what.
Wormholes? Damn. That stuff's just plain silly.
I'm sorry, but that's just foolishness. There's no way to quantify emerging alternate versions of this universe and everything contained with it. That's ridiculous. And Buddhists can count all they want, whatever they want to count, but it doesn't mean anything. It's not real. As far as science aligning with mysticism, that doesn't mean that mysticism (or science) is any closer to getting to the bottom of anything. In fact, it indicates exactly the opposite. Science has been based on collective dogma as well, and advanced technology is debunking it, and some idiots are reaching for mysticism for answers. Other idiots are reacting in other ways to this crisis.
And, like I said, this exchange collapse isn't anything new. You Namaste guys have a tipping point where you start getting childish and abusive. Your enlightened calm cuts out on you, and you get pissy. No surprise.
I write what I write for the lurkers. I just appreciate your helping extend this thread a little. Enjoy your Sunday evening.
Originally posted by NorEaster
Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by NorEaster
I'd probably lump any brain-equipped biological system as being emergent. There is no "linkage" between them and the types of biological systems that work solely on DNA information directives.
Hmm. Any examples of any biological systems that work solely on DNA information directives?
Bacteria is a good example. Cells are a good example. Plant systems are a good example.
In biology, and specifically genetics, epigenetics is the study of heritable changes in gene expression or cellular phenotype, caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence – hence the name epi- (Greek: επί- over, above, outer) -genetics.
It refers to functionally relevant modifications to the genome that do not involve a change in the nucleotide sequence. Examples of such modifications are DNA methylation and histone modification, both of which serve to regulate gene expression without altering the underlying DNA sequence. These changes may remain through cell divisions for the remainder of the cell's life and may also last for multiple generations. However, there is no change in the underlying DNA sequence of the organism;[1] instead, non-genetic factors cause the organism's genes to behave (or "express themselves") differently.
Paramutations represent heritable epigenetic alterations that cause departures from Mendelian inheritance. ...
...It appears that paramutations represent a type of emergent system wherein genomic context and maintenance of chromatin states interact to facilitate meiotically heritable epigenetic variation.
Originally posted by soficrow
Originally posted by NorEaster
Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by NorEaster
I'd probably lump any brain-equipped biological system as being emergent. There is no "linkage" between them and the types of biological systems that work solely on DNA information directives.
Hmm. Any examples of any biological systems that work solely on DNA information directives?
Bacteria is a good example. Cells are a good example. Plant systems are a good example.
Uh oh. Looks like you haven't been keeping up. FYI - I got to epigenetics via my research into prions (an epigenetic mechanism), but all the cutting edge stuff in epigenomics, proteomics, metabolomics etc. is multi-disciplinary.
In biology, and specifically genetics, epigenetics is the study of heritable changes in gene expression or cellular phenotype, caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence – hence the name epi- (Greek: επί- over, above, outer) -genetics.
It refers to functionally relevant modifications to the genome that do not involve a change in the nucleotide sequence. Examples of such modifications are DNA methylation and histone modification, both of which serve to regulate gene expression without altering the underlying DNA sequence. These changes may remain through cell divisions for the remainder of the cell's life and may also last for multiple generations. However, there is no change in the underlying DNA sequence of the organism;[1] instead, non-genetic factors cause the organism's genes to behave (or "express themselves") differently.
Paramutations represent heritable epigenetic alterations that cause departures from Mendelian inheritance. ...
...It appears that paramutations represent a type of emergent system wherein genomic context and maintenance of chromatin states interact to facilitate meiotically heritable epigenetic variation.
Sorry - keep losing text. Quitting. But keep up the good work.
edit on 17/2/13 by soficrow because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by NorEaster
Anyway, getting back to reality: to completely dismiss outright scientific knowledge is just childish. You live in your own subjective bias bubble, which doesn't allow for other views. I'm completely open to being completely wrong about everything I ever experienced and all I know. We may discover a Universe/Dimension where everything is opposite of here, or some scientific finding that will require us to rewrite everything we ever knew, shattering even emergent systems into a trillion pieces of frozen elephant dung.
I've read about prions, but I'm not exactly convinced about the entire picture that is presented there.
Besides, there comes a point when digression becomes a distraction
you asked for examples of DNA-directed biological emergence systems. Right?
Prions aren't DNA-directed,
Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by NorEaster
There is no "you" consciously making decisions.
It is done.
Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by NorEaster
Out of all the things the fundamental reality could have created, in all the different ways it could have done so, why did it create this universe, the way it did, the materials and laws in which it did it, endowing it with the possibilities it possesses.
And you think this universe is the only type of system the fundamental reality can produce? do you think it is the only universe that exists right in this moment? Do you think this universe can be a contained finite in extent system? If so, there could be other contained finite systems beyond this universe (multi-verse theory)?
This is like why Einstein asked "did god have a choice to make this universe, the way it was made or not"..
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)
like do humans have a choice to make TVs and computers anyway they want, or does some fundamental overriding limitations force them into a limited path of choices... Anything that exists is equally bizzare, but the fact we are part of this exact universe that exists, and we exist because of it and its capabilties, and are made of what we are made of, and it is made of what it is made of, it is very bizzare to think about, what it actually is.. and why it is made of these things, and what these things fundamentally can be, where they can come from, where the ultimate reality got these ideas or urges to create with, and did it have a choice what to use to create?
Is the ultimate reality fated to only use one style of material, or is it possible to be a part of a system and make something foundationally and fundamentally different from the system you exist in and as. My guess is no you cant, but that any system that appears foundationally and fundamentally and isolatedly different from the foundational reality creating it, must be done through contrivance and illusion. Everything that ever exists from a particle of dust to life on other planets to other universe to gods to universes that exist infinite light millennia ago to other dimensions to other realms, literally anything that is, has been, and will be, is fated to be related to one another, because they are all equally a part of the totality of all things. They all share the characteristic of existence in some form or another. That on touchable, unknowable, ultimate timescale of all events that have ever happened, are happening, and will happen, in this universe and every, Is what the word "infinity" attempts to point at.