Re: The Universal Mind

From: Rob Duncan (robduncan_at_gbronline.com)
Date: 07/17/04 

Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 02:26:09 +0000 (UTC)

"Pepe le Pew" <CaptainLimerick@diespammers.joimail.com> wrote in message
news:opsa9dtuua6l3ybx@news.myjoi.net...
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 09:46:30 GMT, |-|erc <gotch@beauty.com> wrote:
>
> ...
> > We are a lucky species. We spend most of our energy fighting gravity,
we
> > carry one kilogram brains with masses of muscle, a smaller brain and we
> > would think more like animals.
>
> I know lots of people who think like animals.
>
> > If gravity was twice as strong we would not have made it, if gravity was
> > > half as strong we would have no atmosphere. Its a narrow window that
> > allows us to live.
>
> Where do you get your facts from, Herc? What experiments have been done
> regarding life/evolution with 1/2 or twice the gravity constant of Earth?
> We humans don't have a long enough lifespan to observe evolution
> in action. We don't yet occupy a planet which has half (or twice)
> the gravity constant of Earth. Personally, I believe life would come
> into existence on any planet that is both warm enough to have liquid
> water on its surface and has a stable magnetic field .
>
> > If computers were 1,000 times faster the internet would be less
> > problematic,
>
> Hmmm... If computers were 1000 times faster it would just take less time
> to download spam. The internet would still be clogged with junk.
>
> > if they were 1000 times slower we would not use them. If data transfer
> > > was 1,000 times slower we would not use it.
>
> I've used BBSs at speeds of 1200 bps. If the net speeds were that slow
> we would just find the fastest loading sites and use the net more
> efficiently.
>
> > If radio bandwidth was 1,000 times less we would not have TV.
>
> Bandwidth is a characteristic of a transmitter. The first transmitters
> were rather inefficient because they had large bandwidths. As time went
> on, radio engineers developed more efficient transmitters and bandwidths
> went down as propogation distances increased. TV channels were assigned at
> a time when the transmitters were less efficient. Also, at the time TV
> channels were assigned, there were far fewer users on the airwaves.
>
> > If water boiled at 100 kelvin there would be no carbon based life.
>
> Why not? Again, what studies can you point to to support your stuff?
>
> > If the atmosphere was 10 times thinner planes would not work.
>
> No, if the atmosphere were 1/10th as dense, it would require a wing
> area ten times as large and somewhat more engine power as well.
> That doesn't exclude the development of the airplane, just that
> it would have taken much longer.
>
> > If petrol > was 1%
> > as energy rich we would be riding horses.
>
> Or using some other energy source.
>
> > Every facet of life and technology rides
> > on properties of the universe that have narrow windows of operation,
> > they *just* allow us to operate things effectively.
>
> No, we develop efficient methods of dealing with the problems at hand.
> Nothing *allows* to operate anything efficiently. Profit is what
> motivates us to develop efficiencies.
>
> > The world is rigged!
>
> Rigging implies ropes. I would like to know where the ropes are that
> rig this world.
>
> > When designing things it is often
> > enough to look at a completely different field and follow the analogy
> > between two different objects, and the design will 'fit in'.
>
> I believe a designer looks at different situations for ideas about how
> he/she wants to approach a problem. First the object designed must serve
> a function, then the esthetics come into consideration.
>
> > So how does the mass of coincidence and luck come into play?
>
> Coincidence and luck, cmon, it's an accident of stability that allowed
> the conditions to exist which brought about life on this planet.

You were doing just fine until this point. There is no such thing as
coincidence or luck. Not in the real world. They are subjective states of
mind for the holder in that view only. All things must be as they are given
the laws of physics. They can be no other way. Life on earth exists
because the physical laws of the Universe DEMAND it. It can be no other
way.

> > Somewhere in the subatomic levels of matter and the fabric
> > of space, and the intangible platonic world of absolute knowledge all
> > the variables are optimised for our very existence.
>
> Dude, you have a seriously fragmented brain. You should do some
> maintainence on it.
>
> Are you trying to create a diety? Forget it, there's too many already.

He isnt as far off as you think. The big-bang, and the subsequent Universe
has been constructed in a way that DEMANDS life exist on earth. It DEMANDS
Humans who are self aware and sentient. Due to the physical laws of the
Universe... it can be no other way.

> > millions have won lotteries it would seem inevitable even in a random
> > universe.
>
> HUH, what do lotteries have to do with the universe?
>
> > the point is the machinery of life is so complicated.
>
> The point to what?
>
> > if osmosis was not a property of fluids no water could reach plantcells,
> > a simple facet of physics we take for granted, yet without it~ no life.
>
> First, you need to work on your if-then sentence structures.
>
> Second, NO, osmosis is a process. If the process were impossible then
> plant cells would have never developed. We must not exclude the
> possibility that some other process could have given rise to life.

True.

>
> > there are literally hundreds of physical phenomena
> > life depends on. you could list 1,000 conveniences around you on top of
> > what is necessary.
>
> Hundreds of processes. Physical phenomena are just descriptions.
>
> > what if gravity was 1,000 times stronger than what it is?
>
> Then the rest of the world would be almost as dense as you.
>
> > we would be limited to pin sized brains, not enough to marvel at
physics.
>
> Why do you say this? What studies have been done? Why do you assume
> that lower animals don't marvel at physical phenomena.
>
> > and why couldn't
> > it be 1,000 times more? only 10^3, is that luck?
>
> No, it's a number.
>
> > why matter AND radiation?
>
> Sentence structure again.
>
> > life could exist without us seeing, radiation sure makes its more
> > viewable.
>
> We developed eyes so that we could detect preditors and prey at greater
> distances. Radiation did not come about because we had eyes, it's
> the other way around.
>
> > not only do we sit in a matrix of matter with deterministicprinciples
> > propelling it through time, a wad
> > load of photons bounces of every point of it in every direction so it
> > can be internally mapped from any near location.
>
> You're not making sense. But you're Herc/Trueman/loonsville, so what
> do you care?
>
> > True, there is no implication but there is abduction.
> > Touch stove -> burn hand my hand is burnt
> > Did I touch the stove?
>
> It's possible that you didn't touch the stove. You could have burnt
> your hand with a torch for all we know. You have serious logic
> deficienceis.
>
> > A collective awareness of our existence certainly. Matter is connected
> > via quantum fields, these transcend time forming possible futures,the
> > optimal path is selected and this guides
> > the classical operations of physics right from the Big Bang and its
> > underpinnings.
>
> If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull***.
> Carry on, Herc...
>
> > The opposite side of the theory is that evolution will stop changing
> > humans once we reach the optimal 'design'.
>
> NO, evolution will continue for all time as long as the basic conditions
> of life are stable on this planet. Evolution will continue to exist on
> another planet that has life when those conditions no longer exist on
> this planet. There is no optimal human being and to suggest one could
> exist is somewhat hitleresque.

That last assertion was groundless. Im not sure why you felt the need to
say that. If someone thinks evolution is still going on (which its not,
were in a period of devolution) then so be it. But claims of 'hitleresque'
is just asking for an arguement.

> > I will enhance the theory. During the 1st pivotal moments of the big
> > bang the parameters
> > use information from the future about organic life to set the
> > fundamental constants.

The future does not exist Herc. Theres no way to "look" into it. Nor does,
or has, the past existed. There is only the "now". For ever and all
time... there is only the "now". Literally. But you can change the "now"
by altering deciding funcions of other potential "nows". We dont really
exist along a time-line, although its an easy way of conceptualizing things.
Time, as we like to use it, doesnt really exist. Its a function of our
mind.

Rob

Quantcast