Genesis and Evolution.
1
Vacuum: T=0K
2
Dirac’s Virtual particles = Energy = Information = Consciousness.
3
Particles Evolution: from Virtual to Real.
=.
P.S.
There is - Evolutionary Biology
There isn’t conception of Evolution in Particle physics.
We have part of science which we call ‘ biophysics ‘.
Is it possible what one part of this science ‘ bio’ has
evolution and the other part of the same knowledge
‘ physics’ has not conception of evolution?
===========.
Israel Socratus.
=.
Book: What is your dangerous idea?
/ Edited by John Brockman /
Article:
Seeing Darwin in the light of Einstein;
Seeing Einstein in the light of Darwin.
/ by Lee Smolin. /
===.
Seeing Einstein in the light of Darwin suggests that
natural selection could act not only on living things
but on the properties defining the various species
of elementary particles.
/ Page 115 /
We physicists have now to understand Darwin’s lesson:
The only way to understand how one out of a vast number
of choices was made, which favors improbable structure,
is that is the result of evolution by natural selection.
/ Page 117 /
Now the only possible way of accounting for the laws of nature,
and for uniformity in general, is to suppose them results of evolution.
/ Page 117 /
And I believe that once this is achieved, Einstein and Darwin
will be understood as partners in the greatest revolution
yet in science, . . .
/ Page 118 /
=====================.
I have no problem with that as a view although it's hardly profound or leads anywhere exciting.
So what and where does time,energy and entropy fit in?
I have no problem with that as a view although
it's hardly profound or leads anywhere exciting.
So what and where does time,energy and entropy fit in?
1
Entropy. / My opinion /.
http://cs.astronomy.com/asycs/forums/p/36343/396748.aspx2
Time and Quantum of Light. / My opinion./
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=22562.msg362764;boardseen
=========.
Sorry I have to agree with a lot of the comments.
It seems to be mindless abstraction of ideas with no real purpose it reminds me of watching an epsiode of Kung-Fu with David Carradine ... ah yes Grasshopper.
Elementary particles . . . . ?.
The elementary particles are not as simple as we think.
#
The world of electron.
#
But maybe these electrons are World,
where there are five continents:
the art,
knowledge,
wars,
thrones
and the memory of forty centuries.
/ Valery Brusov. /
#
‘ . . , to start with every molecule as s living thing, . .’
/ Samuel Butler. /
===.
Is an electron, atom, molecule a living thing?
Does an electron, atom, molecule have consciousness ?
Molecular biology and molecular evolution.
Cosmology and cosmic evolution.
Can an electron, atom, molecule evolve?
Does evolution of life begin on electron’s ( atom’s ) level?
Does somebody have doubts that Genesis begin on electron’s ( atom’s ) level?
The origin of life is a natural result of the physical laws that govern the Universe.
Electron takes important part in this work.
If the Universe evolves, can electron evolve too?
===.
P.S.
In our earthly world there is only one elementary fundamental particle.
And it is quantum of light / photon / electron.
The quantum of light / photon / electron is not as simple as we think.
==========.
I. Socratus.
But maybe these electrons are World,
Mark McCutcheon (The Final Theory) would certainly agree with that!
But maybe these electrons are World,
Mark McCutcheon (The Final Theory) would certainly agree with that!
Unfortunately Quantum Theory completely invalidates that idea. I think the last time it was used was in several science fiction stories from the 30s and 40s.
Bill Gill
It's just a classic Non Sequitur argument rubbish
1. People are made of atoms.
2. People are alive.
3. Therefore, atoms are alive.
You can do it till the cows come home.
As Wolfgang Pauli would have said "it is not even wrong"
.
It's just a classic Non Sequitur argument rubbish
1. People are made of atoms.
2. People are alive.
3. Therefore, atoms are alive.
=====.
An analogy to Orac argument.
" All cats are animals,
this dog is an animal,
therefore this dog is a cat ".
======.
Socratus, might be I mis-interpreted Orac's post, but I assumed that his saying this line of reasoning was a "non-sequitur" and "rubbish" indicated that he was not advocating it.
Could this be another case of the Schrödinger cat syndrome?
Unfortunately Quantum Theory completely invalidates that idea. I think the last time it was used was in several science fiction stories from the 30s and 40s.
That is, if you discount McC in 2002, but I guess he is easy to dismiss as a crackpot, and his book is probably "science fiction".
I think the only thing I can say in its favour is that it made me look up things I might not otherwise have looked up, and even made me consider some (very basic) maths.