Didn't we evolve from a single cell organism? At what point in the evolutionary process did any living thing acquires the sense of time?Originally Posted by Stephen
Didn't we evolve from a single cell organism? At what point in the evolutionary process did any living thing acquires the sense of time?Originally Posted by Stephen
Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c²
It appears to me that having a sense of time would require having a sense of self: self-awareness.
I don’t know at what point in the evolution of a single cell organism that self-awareness would emerge.
On another matter entirely, if particles are composed of sub-atomic particles that are composed of sub-atomic particles, etc, then surely everything in the Universe is built from the smallest possible sub-atomic particle.
In terms of the materialist paradigm of physics, this smallest possible sub-atomic particle would be represented by the number one.
As particles and sub-atomic particles are states of matter that absorb and emit, then the number one sub-atomic particle would be represented as level [1] on the materialist paradigm.
A time will come when establishment physics realizes that its abstractionist paradigm is not truly fundamental and is limited in its capacity to explain and specify the process that is the Universe.
When this occurs, the materialist paradigm will be ready and waiting to be adopted by the physics establishment.
Stephen
Humilty,coupled with boldness,surprises truth to
reveal herself?
The fact that a cell divides is not evidence that it has a separate knowledge of its process of division.
Stephen
Well I agree to differ here,Stephen,The evidence is there in the "fact" that it does happen!
This blob of shapeless jelly knows when to divide,and then does so!Seperate knowledge?
It does not have seperate knowledge,it has internal pressure exerted by universal law.
regards michael.
Humilty,coupled with boldness,surprises truth to
reveal herself?
Back to simplicity theory..
What motivates us to seek complexity? Is it an egocentric human failing? String theory is a perfect example of seeking explanations of reality on a level so complex that the mathematics cannot be fully developed to justify the theory, not that it should or would in any event. And yet the proponents of this theory are given immeasurable respect as leaders among the community. This theory cannot be tested, let alone proved, as it represents a sub-quantum scale, and we barely understand QM, only observe it.
The theory that the sun is a colossal nuclear furnace within a mantle of iron surrounded by a sea of plasma is a simple theory, but the evidence for it is compelling. At least I think it is a simpler theory than the one which had been historically accepted, that it is just a super-dense giant gas ball. Simpler because it just makes more sense. The sun has a magnetic field around it, giant gas balls do not. The degree of simplicity of a theory is subjective to the observer, and is dependent on the degree of comfort which one feels with it (I agee with you, tinytree). That comfort is directly proportional to the related knowledge of which the observer is aware to the theory in question.
"There is nothing permanent except change"
"Just looking for an absolute and trying to understand the relatives,
and if your relatives are anything like mine...!"
FYI - an Amoeba has all the information about life processes and uses it to respond to the environmental stimuli. a single nucleotide change in a genome of an organism (from virus to mammals) can mean life or death. In multicellular organisms each cell also knows it's 3 dimensional co-ordinate.Amoeba can react to- touch, light, heat,electrical as well as chemical stimuli. Any corrections are welcome.
sincerely,
yogi
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)