Re: What constitutes a valid THEORY of life?]]
- From: Lorentz <drosen0000@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 12:27:33 -0500 (EST)
On Feb 1, 5:41=A0pm, John Edser <ed...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
re aThus unless the approach to defining life changes then a definition is
impossible, even in principle, as new examples or new properties can be
discovered at any time and under the current approach, this would requi=
ferevision of the definition which would change both the properties of li=
and the list of things which are considered to be living.
JE:-
IOW, without a frame of reference which can only be created by at least
one proposed constant, the variables remain _irrational_.
Regards,
John Edser
Independent Researcher
ed...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
1) Meteorology is supposedly the study of the weather. Have you
applied your reasoning to the study of the weather? What is the single
variable that can be compared in the theory of the weather?
2) Geology is the study of the earth. Have you applied your
reasoning to the study of the earth? What is the single variable that
can be compared in the theory of the earth?
3) Astronomy is the study of the stars. ...
4) Psychology is the study of the mind...
My point is that complex systems aren't easily analyzed from one
unique "reference frame". I am not even sure exactly how you are
generalizing the concept of "reference frame."
.
- References:
- What constitutes a valid THEORY of life?]]
- From: John Edser
- What constitutes a valid THEORY of life?]]
- Prev by Date: Call for Papers: The 2009 International Conference on Bioinformatics
- Next by Date: Re: News: Humans and sponges may share a slimy ancestor
- Previous by thread: What constitutes a valid THEORY of life?]]
- Next by thread: News: Scientists uncover new class of non-protein coding genes in mammals with key functions
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|