Re: Precision is not likely in the OOL
- From: "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 01:45:39 -0400 (EDT)
"Tom Hendricks" <tomhendricks474@xxxxxx> wrote in message news:d2ujih$1vud$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Let's put it this way.
> Out of two pools of molecules
> 1. is stable in the sun heat cycle. It produces a sea of stable
> replicators
> because of the sun forced chemistry.
> 2. the 2nd pool is not stable and produces a single replicator due
> to fluke chemistry that is in no way stable in the sun heat cycle.
>
> Which is more likely to be the replicator of the OOL the first group
> or the single fluke?
> Which is more likely to produce a replicator that is stable?
As I see it, your case #1 produces a sea of stable molecules. What makes
you think that any of them are replicators?
Darwin gives us reason to believe that something that replicates will
eventually "learn" to be good at surviving.
I am not aware of anything that gives us reason to believe that something
that is good at surviving will eventually "learn" to replicate. (Insert
here your favorite examples of salt and gold).
.
- References:
- Re: Precision is not likely in the OOL
- From: Tom Hendricks
- Re: Precision is not likely in the OOL
- Prev by Date: Re: OOL II - Building Blocks
- Next by Date: Re: OOL I - Manifesto and metatheory
- Previous by thread: Re: Precision is not likely in the OOL
- Next by thread: Re: Precision is not likely in the OOL
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
