Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,077 Year: 5,334/9,624 Month: 359/323 Week: 203/160 Day: 20/19 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What could/would falsify Irreducible Complexity?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 72 (456821)
02-20-2008 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by tesla
02-20-2008 9:41 AM


how could anything be any more or less alive than the system that it was spawned from?
Self replication.
The system that the self replicating molecules spawned from was not self replicating, itself. So the self replicating molecules could be said to be "more" alive.
i believe that only living things come from the living, and that our universe is a "living" body.
Of course, that requires you to use an unconventional definition of living. That seems to be your bag, baby. Redefining words so you can make some outrageous claim like you do here to say that universe is alive. Why do you do that? It looks and smells like trolling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by tesla, posted 02-20-2008 9:41 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by tesla, posted 02-20-2008 10:29 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 72 (456841)
02-20-2008 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by tesla
02-20-2008 10:29 AM


if you look at T=0 and a singular energy existed in a timeless state, with nothing else to interact with but itself: it self replicated.
That's not what self replication is.
i don't redefine the terms, i simply look at the definitions and refine them based on new information.
or in other words: redefine them
i do not put this here to be a "troll" i put this here for your observation, at which you can dismiss, think about it, or acknowledge however you choose.
What makes it trollish is that when peope show how you are obviously and blatantly wrong, you continue to spout the same nonsense.
The universe did not self replicate in the sense that self replicating molecules do. The self replicating molecules' self replication is one step closer to being living.
but as i see it; non living means : to not exist.
There you go redefining agin "living" has a definition and it is not simply existing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by tesla, posted 02-20-2008 10:29 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by tesla, posted 02-20-2008 12:03 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 72 (456871)
02-20-2008 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by tesla
02-20-2008 12:03 PM


if nothing else to interact with but itself, what is it? define self replication for me since I'm a fool?
Did you always have other people do your homework for you?
Why don't you just look it up if you don't know what it means?
And here is the page on irreducible complexity since you seem to not know what that is either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by tesla, posted 02-20-2008 12:03 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by tesla, posted 02-20-2008 2:15 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 72 (456877)
02-20-2008 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by tesla
02-20-2008 2:15 PM


if there is only a single thing, and it evolved with no other interactions, what else can you call it?
You just call it a thing. I don't get what you are asking? If it is self replicating, then after the replication, you will have two of those things. You said the universe self replicated, that would mean that we would end up with two universes. But that defeats the wole point of the "Uni" part of the word.
in my initial statement i have already concluded this for a definition to be incorrect.
If you want to make up your own definitions for words then you are just trolling.
You are waaaaay too under-edjucated to be discussing these things with your attitude that your always right.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by tesla, posted 02-20-2008 2:15 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by tesla, posted 02-20-2008 2:34 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 72 (456887)
02-20-2008 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by tesla
02-20-2008 2:34 PM


but i wonder what term can be applied to something that is "self evolving" that is: to evolve into a different structure than its initial state, without any outside interactions.
But things just do that on their own. Take a sealed glass of water at room temp and put it in the freezer. Without any outside interactions, the water will "self evolve" into ice. The term we use for that is: freezing.
In the context of the universe/Big Bang we just call it 'expanding'. You seem to think that the universe was just hanging out as a singularity for some amount of time and then something happened that made it change into what it is today. It turns out, that is not the case.
Things change on their own. Take some gas concentrated in a little box, put the box in a room, and then open it. The gas will fill the room without outside interaction. It just does it all on its own, and there's a term for that too.
We don't need some all encompasing term like "self evolving" to describe things that are already defined.
your words are like venom
Ditto.
I'm looking at biology to its simplest "irreducible" form to determine what "irreducible complexity" truly means, and where it would be truly applicable.
Then you're not talking about irreducible complexity.
Why obfuscate the issue by taking an already defined concept and turning into your own little fantasy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by tesla, posted 02-20-2008 2:34 PM tesla has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 72 (456896)
02-20-2008 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by tesla
02-20-2008 3:26 PM


if there is only a single environment of a singular timeless state, there is nothing else to interact with but its own condition in a timeless state, and an evolution in a timeless state with no outside interactions is a self evolvement.
What's wrong with a self evolvement?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by tesla, posted 02-20-2008 3:26 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by tesla, posted 02-20-2008 4:07 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024