According to researchers, preliminary tests with the simulator, under possible conditions of the early Earth, created protocells, not living but very important nonetheless.[3] According to biologistDavid Deamer, the machine is a game changer, and the cells produced so far are "significant". The "cells are not alive, but are evolutionary steps toward a living system of molecules ... [the simulator] opens up a lot of experimental activities that were literally impossible before.”[3] Based on initial tests with the new simulator technology, project director Rheinstadter stated that it "seems that the formation of life is probably a relatively frequent process in the universe".
Ya, that seems like an old theory. I've read that it's possible life started multiple times on Earth, possibly even shortly after the planet cooled. I'm in the camp that it isn't a rare occurrence. With the proper ingredients, it's bound to happen.
We only really need to find it once in our solar system to solidify the plentiful life theory.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
I just think its wild that we are all derived from organic molecules that through interacting with their environments became more and more complex to a point that they were able to copy themselves. Then as a species, through making our lives more complex allowing our survival to become trivial to a point where people can spend their time to figure this #### out by landing robots on far away planets.
The Following User Says Thank You to Sluggo For This Useful Post:
I just think its wild that we are all derived from organic molecules that through interacting with their environments became more and more complex to a point that they were able to copy themselves. Then as a species, through making our lives more complex allowing our survival to become trivial to a point where people can spend their time to figure this #### out by landing robots on far away planets.
^Over the years I find more and more that science content seems pseudo-religious in nature... More like the ultimate religion IMO... All of the political/religious resistance is just people who can not or refuse to understand. Ah well congrats, I proverbially clicked several first links on Wikipedia and ended up in philosophy.
^Over the years I find more and more that science content seems pseudo-religious in nature... More like the ultimate religion IMO... All of the political/religious resistance is just people who can not or refuse to understand. Ah well congrats, I proverbially clicked several first links on Wikipedia and ended up in philosophy.
Here’s a fun quirk about the universe- you can decide for yourself what metaphysical implications it has, if any.
Light is the fastest thing in the universe. Which means there’s nothing that light cannot overcome.
Except.
Absolute darkness. A black hole can can crush light out of existence. Light and everything else it gets ahold of.
I think that’s pretty illustrative of the fundamental nature of good and evil.
But that’s just me.
__________________
Mom and Dad love you, Rowan - February 15, 2024
This is an interesting metaphysical string of thought. Of course, we are ascribing it human creations like "good" and "evil".
We know that the physical nature of the universe lends itself towards entropy, which will likely ultimately culminate in a universal state of thermodynamic equilibrium without some yet unknown interventional process.
We do know of one process that seriously disrupts the regular procession of entropy: Life. Life adds energy to different parts of it's process to balance entropy as it requires; typically to suit it's primary purpose of propagating. This, defacto, makes life as we know it the counter-ballast or perhaps even the mandatory counter force to thermodynamic entropy on a physical scale. This rationale was used to form an argument that Life may actually be a physical imperative of the universe.
So, would you say it is more "evil" to counter the natural physical inclination of the universe? Or to allow it? Perhaps darkness is the preferred state of the entire system, so is life "evil" for forcefully disrupting this state?
Forget light. Light is just energetic particles ready to be used in other reactions.
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monahammer
This is an interesting metaphysical string of thought. Of course, we are ascribing it human creations like "good" and "evil".
We know that the physical nature of the universe lends itself towards entropy, which will likely ultimately culminate in a universal state of thermodynamic equilibrium without some yet unknown interventional process.
We do know of one process that seriously disrupts the regular procession of entropy: Life. Life adds energy to different parts of it's process to balance entropy as it requires; typically to suit it's primary purpose of propagating. This, defacto, makes life as we know it the counter-ballast or perhaps even the mandatory counter force to thermodynamic entropy on a physical scale. This rationale was used to form an argument that Life may actually be a physical imperative of the universe.
So, would you say it is more "evil" to counter the natural physical inclination of the universe? Or to allow it? Perhaps darkness is the preferred state of the entire system, so is life "evil" for forcefully disrupting this state?
Forget light. Light is just energetic particles ready to be used in other reactions.
Life doesn't disrupt or counter entropy in any way.
On a small scale parts of the system may seem to reverse entropy, but life, or any part of it, isn't a closed system, so you can't look at it in isolation.
Any form of life is using energy to do something, which means overall it is resulting in an increase in the entropy of the universe as a whole.
Life doesn't counteract anything, it's just another step along the path towards the heat death of the universe.
Everything you do takes us 1 tiny bit closer to the end of everything.
Enjoy your day!
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
The way we think of them now, stars collapse down to infinitely dense points known as singularities, where time stops. Except in Smolin’s theory there is no infinitely dense point. The star collapses to a certain density and then bounces into a new expansion — an expansion that marks the birth of an all new universe. Time ends within a black hole only to begin again in a new world.
My problem is the natural extension of this analogy.
Light is a function of energy.
Eventually the universe will run out of energy- chemical reactions cease.
The universe WILL go dark.
So eventually, evil ALWAYS triumphs over good?
My personal favourite "hopeful" consequence of the eventual heat-death of the universe is the idea of cyclical "Big Bounce" universe-creations.
Quote:
Two infinite branes--one that becomes our universe and a "mirror universe"--live a tiny fraction of a meter apart. When the branes collide, the resulting energy creates all the matter and energy in our universe. The membranes then bounce apart. The newborn universe, on its brane, evolves and eventually burns out. However, the theorists were surprised to realize that the collide-and-bounce process repeats itself ad infinitum.
The Following User Says Thank You to driveway For This Useful Post:
^Over the years I find more and more that science content seems pseudo-religious in nature... More like the ultimate religion IMO... All of the political/religious resistance is just people who can not or refuse to understand. Ah well congrats, I proverbially clicked several first links on Wikipedia and ended up in philosophy.
I think you just have to look at how much money and power religion has over people and you will figure out why people resist science....
LIVE: Tour the Perseverance Mars Rover’s New Home with NASA Mission Experts
Take a guided tour around the first high-definition 360-degree view of Jezero Crater provided by NASA's Perseverance Mars Rover. Mission experts will walk us through the new Martian terrain, explain why it’s got scientists excited, and answer your questions.
<-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
