Logic
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-10-2015, 07:14 PM
RE: Logic
(29-10-2015 06:45 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(29-10-2015 09:58 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I don't have the Hawking book, but I do have several other books that collect various writings of Einstein. I will check tonight and see if I can find that letter in one of them.

I looked in Einstein's Ideas and Opinions, A.P. French's Einstein Centenary volume, the Clark and Pais biographies, and the Einstein volume in the Library of Living Philosophers. I did not find the letter in question, nor any mention of it. Of course, there are more comprehensive sources that I don't have, but I failed to find it in the ones I do have. FWIW.

He did only write it a month before his own demise. But I did look some more for any dispute of its provenance. It appears there is no dispute. So thens I says well let's track the provenance ourselves. Wikiquote has it as first appearing in 1979 in Freeman Dyson's "Science and the Search for God Disturbing the Universe". I'll need to look at Dyson's references to see what his attribution is. Could this be a dreaded Bootstrap Paradox? (cue scary music)




There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
30-10-2015, 07:19 AM
RE: Logic
(29-10-2015 07:14 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(29-10-2015 06:45 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I looked in Einstein's Ideas and Opinions, A.P. French's Einstein Centenary volume, the Clark and Pais biographies, and the Einstein volume in the Library of Living Philosophers. I did not find the letter in question, nor any mention of it. Of course, there are more comprehensive sources that I don't have, but I failed to find it in the ones I do have. FWIW.

He did only write it a month before his own demise. But I did look some more for any dispute of its provenance. It appears there is no dispute. So thens I says well let's track the provenance ourselves. Wikiquote has it as first appearing in 1979 in Freeman Dyson's "Science and the Search for God Disturbing the Universe". I'll need to look at Dyson's references to see what his attribution is. Could this be a dreaded Bootstrap Paradox? (cue scary music)




I will add a slight correction to my last post. I looked again, and the Pais biography does mention a letter of condolence written by Einstein to Besso's family. However, Pais only quotes the beginning of the letter: "Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me." The part that is in question here is not quoted.

However, this is enough for me to conclude that there was indeed such a letter, and if the beginning was quoted accurately (by Dyson and Wikipedia), there's no good reason to suspect that the rest of the quote is not also accurate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
30-10-2015, 10:14 AM
RE: Logic
(30-10-2015 07:19 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I will add a slight correction to my last post. I looked again, and the Pais biography does mention a letter of condolence written by Einstein to Besso's family. However, Pais only quotes the beginning of the letter: "Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me." The part that is in question here is not quoted.

However, this is enough for me to conclude that there was indeed such a letter, and if the beginning was quoted accurately (by Dyson and Wikipedia), there's no good reason to suspect that the rest of the quote is not also accurate.

I think this case is closed.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2015, 12:48 PM
RE: Logic
(28-10-2015 10:57 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-10-2015 11:37 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You might want to visit another thread where we are discussing the impossibility of random processes creating life.

Well, it's a good thing the process wasn't random. It's called natural selection.

Change + replication + selection is not a random process, it is merely a mindless process. Drinking Beverage

Natural selection enhanced the survivability/adaptations of non-life to make life? Glad you cleared that up for me. Thanks.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2015, 10:53 PM
RE: Logic
(30-10-2015 12:48 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(28-10-2015 10:57 AM)Chas Wrote:  Well, it's a good thing the process wasn't random. It's called natural selection.

Change + replication + selection is not a random process, it is merely a mindless process. Drinking Beverage

Natural selection enhanced the survivability/adaptations of non-life to make life? Glad you cleared that up for me. Thanks.

You clearly don't understand what evolution is. It is an algorithm. It is, in fact, a universal algorithm.

Imperfect replication and differential survival are the components. There is no clear dividing line between non-life and life. The first replicators were molecules, then there were interacting groups of molecules, then connected groups of interacting molecules, then contained, interacting groups of molecules, and so on.

At every step of the way there was imperfect replication and differential survival. At no step would it be clear that before that step ther was no life and after that step there was life.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2015, 01:43 PM
RE: Logic
(30-10-2015 10:53 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-10-2015 12:48 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Natural selection enhanced the survivability/adaptations of non-life to make life? Glad you cleared that up for me. Thanks.

You clearly don't understand what evolution is. It is an algorithm. It is, in fact, a universal algorithm.

Imperfect replication and differential survival are the components. There is no clear dividing line between non-life and life. The first replicators were molecules, then there were interacting groups of molecules, then connected groups of interacting molecules, then contained, interacting groups of molecules, and so on.

At every step of the way there was imperfect replication and differential survival. At no step would it be clear that before that step ther was no life and after that step there was life.

I certainly understand, however, "interacting groups of molecules, and so on" hardly explains how the first life simultaneously developed the abilities to replicate, excrete, ingest/subsume/digest, etc. No.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2015, 09:44 PM (This post was last modified: 02-11-2015 09:53 PM by Chas.)
RE: Logic
(02-11-2015 01:43 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(30-10-2015 10:53 PM)Chas Wrote:  You clearly don't understand what evolution is. It is an algorithm. It is, in fact, a universal algorithm.

Imperfect replication and differential survival are the components. There is no clear dividing line between non-life and life. The first replicators were molecules, then there were interacting groups of molecules, then connected groups of interacting molecules, then contained, interacting groups of molecules, and so on.

At every step of the way there was imperfect replication and differential survival. At no step would it be clear that before that step ther was no life and after that step there was life.

I certainly understand, however, "interacting groups of molecules, and so on" hardly explains how the first life simultaneously developed the abilities to replicate, excrete, ingest/subsume/digest, etc. No.

Define "first life".

Molecules replicate - no life necessary.

You're in way over your head here. There are some areas of science you simply do not know enough about. Start with mathematics, then move to chemistry, then biology.
Maybe then you will have some understanding of evolution.

Quote: the first life simultaneously developed the abilities to replicate, excrete, ingest/subsume/digest, etc.
Pro tip: It wasn't simultaneous; it was, and is, incremental.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
03-11-2015, 12:16 PM
RE: Logic
(02-11-2015 09:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(02-11-2015 01:43 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I certainly understand, however, "interacting groups of molecules, and so on" hardly explains how the first life simultaneously developed the abilities to replicate, excrete, ingest/subsume/digest, etc. No.

Define "first life".

Molecules replicate - no life necessary.

You're in way over your head here. There are some areas of science you simply do not know enough about. Start with mathematics, then move to chemistry, then biology.
Maybe then you will have some understanding of evolution.

Quote: the first life simultaneously developed the abilities to replicate, excrete, ingest/subsume/digest, etc.
Pro tip: It wasn't simultaneous; it was, and is, incremental.

Your answer, directing me to study more, is a cop out. Your tip is the commonly accepted wisdom that all these life-support systems developed incrementally. Like, d'uh, dude!

Pro tip: You need a reproductive system to reproduce, and the other systems are needed for life. I call baloney.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2015, 10:17 AM
RE: Logic
(03-11-2015 12:16 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(02-11-2015 09:44 PM)Chas Wrote:  Define "first life".

Molecules replicate - no life necessary.

You're in way over your head here. There are some areas of science you simply do not know enough about. Start with mathematics, then move to chemistry, then biology.
Maybe then you will have some understanding of evolution.

Pro tip: It wasn't simultaneous; it was, and is, incremental.

Your answer, directing me to study more, is a cop out. Your tip is the commonly accepted wisdom that all these life-support systems developed incrementally. Like, d'uh, dude!

Pro tip: You need a reproductive system to reproduce, and the other systems are needed for life. I call baloney.

Your incredulity is not an argument.

Your demonstrated lack of knowledge and understanding of science disqualify you from being a credible critic. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2015, 10:31 AM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2015 12:16 PM by Mathilda.)
RE: Logic
(02-11-2015 01:43 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I certainly understand, however, "interacting groups of molecules, and so on" hardly explains how the first life simultaneously developed the abilities to replicate, excrete, ingest/subsume/digest, etc. No.


Why does life have to simultaneously develop the abilities to replicate, excrete, ingest/subsume/digest ?

The only reliable definition of life is that it has a metabolism.

You are displaying the typical theist mentality of binary thinking, unable to think outside of discrete states.

Molecules aggregated to become proto-life which eventually formed into life as we recognise it today.

All that is required for a metabolism to develop is for some source of free energy to be sub/con- sumed and to produce work. Excretion is a natural consequence because a waste product will be left behind. Replication and then evolution can come afterwards because it will make the process more efficient.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Mathilda's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: