Looking For Life on Other Worlds

So I guess you don`t think silicon based lifeforms are likely to exist?

anarayn $96 you write ``you seem to say, he DOES NOT have an idea of what it might do, where it might go...hence the need to keep a watchful eye on it...to `manage` it.``
I do not say anything one way or another on this. I dont even say whether he manages anything - all I say he what he is not: his not a micromanager. And I say this based on evidence collected to date which indicates that evolution has taken place without God having to design a human, a flower, or a goat or any other living thing.

you write ``Further you seem to say...since the fundamental laws seem so constant and omnipresent...perhaps this God doesn`t really interfere with his creation after he`s done creating it. ``
That seems to be the case indeed based on my understanding of evidence to date. Its just that the laws that we are familiar with (e.g. the laws of classical physics) are themselves the result of the operation of more fundamental laws (i.e. the laws of quantum physics), and those rest on even more basic laws (i.e. the laws of pre-Big Bang ``times``, whatever those laws were and if ``time`` even existed prior to Big Bang). And so ad infinitum. As I discussed in my previous post.

As for your question regarding God having a memory, I think the concept of memory relates to us time-bound humans and is essentially irrelevant when thinking of God. Why do you ask this question?

tahmed,

Thanks for letting us know your ideas. Couple questions:


(1)
``...as such, God does not need to micro-manage everthing...``

God as the CEO!

When Edison created the light bulb...we can safely assume he knew well (more or less) what was expected of the bulb.

When God creates creation...you seem to say, he DOES NOT have an idea of what it might do, where it might go...hence the need to keep a watchful eye on it...to `manage` it.

Further you seem to say...since the fundamental laws seem so constant and omnipresent...perhaps this God doesn`t really interfere with his creation after he`s done creating it.

Do I understand you correctly?



(2)

Does God (per your concept) have memory?

Does he remember things that hapenned yesterday? ...the previous minute?
Does he need to have memory...per your concept?


thanks,

anarayan #94 Far from saying that God is bound by laws (or even the very concept of time), I am (and have been) saying the opposite: that God CREATED the fundamental laws to begin with. And, furthermore, these fundamental laws are not merely the laws of classical physics, or the laws of chemistry underlying evolution - since classical physics and chemistry, are themselves the result from the laws of quantum physics that we are only beginning to appreciate (far less properly understand) and which are so counterintuitive as to strain or mental capacities. AND as such, God does not need to micro-manage everthing, far less put limits on scientific reasearch or make society a prisoner of tradition and historical events (as many religious fundamentalists would like to do in God`s name).
Incidentally, I disagree when you say mediocrity likes comfort. None of us chowkies knows other posters well enough to attribute mediocrity or genius to one another. And indeed, I happen to believe in the saying that ``Great minds think alike``. Mediocrites quarrel till the cows come home. And if you dont believe me, read the endless arguments on kashmir, laughable comparisons of the living standards of two of the poorest and socially and culturally most backward countries on earth (namely India and Pakistan). Non-mediocrites (relatively speaking) AGREE that both countries have a lot of catching up to do before they become an asset, not a liability, to the cause of human progress. I feel comfortable with such agreement. Even if it makes me a mediocrity in your eyes (not that I have any doubts that I am anything but a mediocrity anyway - but not as mediocre as some of chowk posters I could name. That I am sure of).
NOTE: Since you have not been reading my earlier posts (otherwise you would not have thought I am saying something as thoughtless as saying that God is bound by natural laws), I think you better stop reading here. The rest of my post is simply more idle thoughts along the same lines.

I am going a step beyond even quantum physics, since even those laws resulted from the Big Bang and as such cannot be considered the most fundamental. What I am saying, my friend, is that God is indeed the creator of everything, of laws at every level - quantum physics, classical physics, chemistry, even social interaction. BUT (and this is a HUGE but) he does not interfere in any of these laws (far less does he carry out miracles, give triplets to previously infertile couples, and so forth as ardent believers in all religions think). What I am saying is: God (and I wont even speculate on what this concept means beyond saying that this is some form of consciousness that some people - including myself - BELIEVE exists, but realize we can never prove or disproe this belief) operates at a level that lies beyond the furthest reaches of science, the realm that gave rise to the laws of quantum physics and all derived laws (i.e. the rest of natural and even social sciences) thereafter.

tahmed32,

``HOWEVER, he has also made it clear (per your quote from his earlier post) that he is quite comfortable with the concept of a God who operates through fundamental rules``

You mean a God bound by all the worldly laws...and yet working HIS good works?
In that case...that God is little better than a common magician !!!

Can a God be bound by Time? What is Time?
All interesting questions...but some other time maybe (no pun intended).

------------------------------

``My question to you then is: are you as comfortable as he is with the concept of a ``universal consciousness`` that essentially gives a free hand to the search for knowledge through the scientific method or not, and in fact does not interfere in everyday life?``


Only the mediocre look for comfort. (Don`t know who said this...but it sounds good!)

Does the universe care what anarayan or sameer or tahmed thinks?!
Let us simply wonder at this magnificient creation...and silently pass on.

cheers,

anarayan #91 Another thing: SameerJB may have, as you say, rejected the concept of a ``universal consciousness`` in the way it is commonly assumed to mean. HOWEVER, he has also made it clear (per your quote from his earlier post) that he is quite comfortable with the concept of a God who operates through fundamental rules, and does not micro-manage by imposing his will in everyday matters.
My question to you then is: are you as comfortable as he is with the concept of a ``universal consciousness`` that essentially gives a free hand to the search for knowledge through the scientific method or not, and in fact does not interfere in everyday life? If you are, then I dont see what is upsetting you.

anarayan #90 So you think that the DNA is merely (!) a floppy disk (i.e. software)? This floppy disk contains that instruction manual for building a living thing. If you are looking for the creator of anything (living or dead), you look for the author of the instruction manual. Not at the building material (carbon or silicon or whatever). Is this concept really that hard to understand?

sameer,

``is your belief in universal consiousness manifesting itself before life and also playing its role at molecular level similar to micro-management. This position is very close to fundamentalist Christian and Islamic belief of God interfering as ``will`` at each and every momemt in time and space, micro-managing everything down to sub-atomic level - although your universal consiousness has nothing to do with God or designer. But you do see its role side by side with matter at molecular and micro level.``

Thats a good (and expected) question. At what level does this `conciousness` interact with matter ?

I have no answer (nor does anyone I guess). Thats why I put all those `maybe`s!

------------------------------

``Except for some philosophical musings over tea, tahmed`s position of not-micro-managing designer or God is very comfortable for reconciliation. More imortantly it allows unfettered research and liberty to know and learn utilizing every possible mean. Same experiments carried out at tahmed`s and mine labs would yield same results because we are looking for details at microlevel.``

Sameer saab...I am NOT arguing about stopping all research...because of a belief in `consciousness`.

How does the scinetific process go? You make a hypothesis...then test it out. Doesn`t work...go onto the next hypothesis...and so on till you arrive at the truth or as close as possible to it.

You have rejected the `universal consciouss` hypothesis...in favour of the random process/reaction hypothesis. This hypothesis is woefully inadequate to explain plenty of things.

I notice you have not answered my last question...what percentage of chemicals in a cell are useless?

Perhaps you are afraid of the answer !!!

---------------------------

tahmed,

Arre yaar, we have been through this already. DNA is just a floppy disk for life. By itself, it can do nothing. Without correct and timely inputs (chemicals) and other auxillary processes running parallely , it cannot even reproduce.

regards,

anarayan and tahmed321: I asked the question about properties of carbon to understand your position of universal consiousness. What I gather from your following statement:
That inteligence (PERHAPS) used carbon as the most suitable material that exists...OR...after a few trials, it concluded that carbon is the most suitable.
is your belief in universal consiousness manifesting itself before life and also playing its role at molecular level similar to micro-management. This position is very close to fundamentalist Christian and Islamic belief of God interfering as ``will`` at each and every momemt in time and space, micro-managing everything down to sub-atomic level - although your universal consiousness has nothing to do with God or designer. But you do see its role side by side with matter at molecular and micro level.
Except for some philosophical musings over tea, tahmed`s position of not-micro-managing designer or God is very comfortable for reconciliation. More imortantly it allows unfettered research and liberty to know and learn utilizing every possible mean. Same experiments carried out at tahmed`s and mine labs would yield same results because we are looking for details at microlevel.
Actually in terms of universal consiousness and eastern philosophies, the big bang is the best firiend as the source of all matter in the universe thus making us all linked into one without resorting to non-material ideas.

anarayan #88 I think in considering the individual cell and the material it is made from in order to determine whether life is a result of random chance or intelligent design, both you and SameerJB are barking up the wrong tree. A more relevant tree to bark up is the DNA tree: life is, in essence, information, with the DNA providing the assembly instructions in a particular language (the four letter code of A, T, G and C).
AND, the DNA (as I said in my earlier post) is the result of random events (like viral invasions, with the viral genes being added to the genes in the cell). And it has a large number of inactive genes (i.e. they do not produce any proteins and seem to be there just for the ride, and may or may not have been active at sometime in the past).
If you are looking for intelligent design, you would have to look far deeper than the cell, and indeed even the DNA - you would need to understand subatomic physics, you would need to understand the time-space continuum. In fact, as I said in my previous post to SameerJB, you would need to develop a concept of religion and God that is vastly more profound (and with God vastly further up the causal chain) than most people imagine (and indeed probably CAN ever imagine).
So, controversies like intelligent design vs. random occurrence (or ``religion`` vs. science) are ultimately red herrings that detract from the enormous favor mankind can do itself by promoting rational thinking and the development of science and technology.

sameer,

First you deny it:
A) ``Nobody has asserted that first cell just mysteriously appeared one day from the soup.``

Then you accept it:
B) ``Actually soup has to go through million of years of tinkering and reacting according to the laws of nature until a series of reaction found an edge in survival through working in unison or synergetically.``

??????!!

Statment B means the same thing...you ARE stating (albeit in a round-about, verbose manner) that the first cell appeared BY CHANCE from the primordial soup.


Here`s more confusion:
----------------------
You say:``To make it more efficient, more players were allowed to join the party but tinkering at many levels continued.``

more players allowed in...by whom ???

to make it more efficient...by whose idea ???

***Clearly, you are yourself introducing the idea of a `designer`...are you not ???***


In summary: You see no way out of this difficulty...about how the first cell could arise by itself without an intelligence behind it.


-----------------------------------------------------------

Regarding your questions:

1) ``Did properties of carbon (as element) are part of this intelligent design too?``


Lets say you want to plug a hole on the roof. What do you do?

If you have a lot of time on your hands, your intelligence makes you look around for the most suitable material. Is it light? is it strong? can it be cut easily?, etc. etc.
Perhaps you may try a few different materials before finding something that works well.

Why should not the same logic apply here?

Also, I don`t quite follow by what logic you conclude that the `universal consciousness` MUST have created the carbon atom as well ???!!!

That inteligence (PERHAPS) used carbon as the most suitable material that exists...OR...after a few trials, it concluded that carbon is the most suitable.

--------------

2) ``What is in the nature of intelligent design to choose L-amino acids over D-amino acids 100 percent; D-series is useless in life. It is more of achoice got built into earliest form of life due to better attachment to certain clay providing it a home to settle down and grow. Otherwise D-amino acid is chemically same as L-amino acid.``


Ok, this is a much more interesting question!!

You`re asking, if there really IS a grand designer, why are there are these redundant chemicals in cells/body. Is the designer confused or dumb or what?

Well, personally speaking, I`m not in favour of a `grand designer` concept...a God, if you will. I like to think of a `universal consciousness` that is very very very subtle...not a grand designer God who can see a zillion years into the future...or move a mountain in a blink of the eye.

This consciousnes exists side by side with matter. It wishes to manifest, to express itself, to `play`.

Does this `consciousness` have the power to affect matter in a gross way?...move mountains, etc...maybe No.
Does this `consciousness` have the power to affect matter in a very very subtle way?...maybe yes.

(The above is off-course just my conjecture...so please don`t laugh too hard!!)



That said, we can move over to your question.

There are lots of things that are `evolutionary baggage`. The third-eye and appendix being two examples in human beings. These will be got rid off...eventually.

Does that answer your question? No? In that case here`s a counter question:

You hypothesize that ALL chemicals in a cell are due to random processes/reactions. No behind-the-scene intelligence working here. In that case...a large proportion of checmicals in the cell should be useless. Is that logic correct?

What is the proportion of chemicals in a cell/body that are useless. As an expert, please give us a ball-park figure.


regards,

sameerJB #86 I agree with your skepticism when it comes to mixing religion and science, and indeed the proponents of intelligent design would find it very difficult to view God as anything but a micro-manager. The one who keeps an eye on every sparrow that falls (per christian views) and is offended if an individual does not kneel before him five times a day (per muslim views, not based on the Quran incidentally). I would go further and say that the mixing of religion and science has done tremendous damage to the cause of human progress over the past thousand years: the mosques rang out against Ibn Sina in 10th century persia, and on more than one occassion he had to make a hasty exit from a city with the fervent mullahs in hot persuit (and today all this is forgotten by the spiritual descendants of the same mullahs, who spare no opportunity to present people like Ibn Sina as shining examples of muslim glory). Galileo had to go through an inquisition and was forced to toe the then-christian belief that the earth was the center of the universe. The creationists will take another 100 years to disappear and accept what is plainly there to see. And the limitations on stem cell research in the US today under pressure from theologists among others has no doubt given a setback to the cause of medical advancement.
So I suppose I should stop dragging religion into this very interesting discussion, since the concept of religion I have in mind (of a God who is anything but a micro-manager) is not the concept most people have.

sameerJB #83 I think to say that the number of impossibilities is decreasing fast, as you do, is like plankton ingesting a tiny fraction of a milligram of water and declaring that it will soon dry up the Pacific Ocean. The fact is, as I noted earlier, that infinity (which for us puny humans is essentially the magnitude of what we dont know) minus any number (which is all scinetific knowledge we have gained to date PLUS all knowledge we can possibly gain until the sun dies on us a few billion years from now, and/or we evolve into some totally different from of consciousness, whichever comes earlier) is still infinity.

tahmed321: I liked your post. However, removing designer from the position of micro-manager is a very bitter pill for intelligent design camp to swallow. I do not wish to bring any religion into this debate but think of implications of your comment of not-micro-managing.
Regarding fractals and chaos theory, I must add that the fractal is a macro outcome of the extrapolation of non-linear equation and as you pointed out, very sensitive to initial conditions. At micro level, at each step of the reaction, energetics and equilibriums play their part according to current scientific understanding. In fractal geometry, there is only one path with respect to initial conditions but in evolution, the paths are not limited but in competition with winner taking all, leaving losers to end in oblivion, exceptions, abnormalities or diseases.
Some of the paths are favored by nature, chemistry, life and even human life itself. The grain we call wheat is human assisted proliferation of a ``tumorous`` grass seed having larger weight than average grass seed.
The shape of life at present is by no means the only and best option given very large number of possibilities. Having two eyes that can only see front view is not the best intelligent design for a biped upright without considering evolution. They are there because of evolution from rodent to primates to homo-sapiens. The best position would have been on the sides (as in rodents) to be able to see both front and back.

urstruly #79 You are quite right in saying that with the introduction of Chaos theory (a young branch of math that was started only about four decades ago) the concept of entropy as traditionally understood is open to question. In fact, I dont see any reason why insights obtained through the Chaos theory would not apply to the behavior of matter as well. In particular, the two basic insights contributed by Chaos theory relate to (a) the greatly magnified longer run impact of a minor change in initial conditions; and (b) the ``strange attractor``, meaning the underlying stability and predictability of an seemingly chaotic system. Applied to evolution, (a) implies that the evolution of life on earth could have taken a different turn - and indeed the DNA is considered to include genes that represent historical events: Like viral infections of millions or billions of years ago that have left a permanent mark in our DNA in the form of genes that were contributed by the virus; or like ``peace treaties`` between cells and invading bacteria of the kind that have resulted in mitochondria - initially a foreign body - now being ``part of the family`` inside most types of cells, and indeed being the power generators for these cells. (b) implies that a few simple rules can lead to a predictable outcome regardless of the seeming chaos on the surface. This is what I was trying to explain in a different way in my previous post to anarayan: that is, as science seems to indicate, God does not need to micro-manage the universe through taking an active part in each and every event in the universe. He just needs to set the basic rules (or matter, or even of a small handful of subatomic particles), and the rest will follow in a fairly deterministic way all the way to an expanding universe and black holes and quasers having the energy of a quadzillion suns.
The interesting thing is: SINCE by all indications God is not a micromanager, one can persue scientific knowledge and technological advance WITHOUT being concerned with whether or not God exists. In other words, science and religion are essentially separate but compatible realms.

This is all there is in support of universal consiousness, intelligent design and one or more designers. Basically opposing laws of nature, chemistry, biology, evolution, relying upon lack of detailed step-by-step explanation at this stage in history, throwing in mokey wrenches on behalf of pre-conceived notion of intelligent design and designer without proving anything is modus operandi of intelligent design camp. Of course, on another level, they break up opposing each other ruthlessly pitting for one or more than one designer.
To summerize: ``Science is about possibilities, not impossibilities`` and therefore requires intelligent design, designer(s) and universail consiousness. ``The living cell is imossinle to create in a lab`` and therefore requires intelligent design, designer(s) and universal consiousness. ``The fractal geometry has patterns and beautiful designs`` and therefore requires intelligent design, designer and universal consiousness.
Impossibilities are impossibilities until becoming possibilites. The history of scientific revolution is full of examples of impossibilities becoming possibilities. The number of impossibilites are decreasing fast. The linking of impossibilities to intelligent design, designer(s) and universal consiousness means decrease in importance of all such notions with the decrease in the level of impossibilities with time.
Neither complexity of living cell nor fractal geometric patterns exist before they are allowed free exrtrapolation and evolution according to non-linear expansion. The fractals actually deny participation of intelligent design or designer; they point actullay to the unpredictability of extrapolation according to non-linear equations. Simply because of its oversensitivity to very minute variations leading to totally different patterns actually oppose the idea of intelligent design as well as designer.
I guess oversensitivity of designer about past is matched by its hypersensivity to disobedience at present stage. Designer is really obsessed with fluid dynamics....::))