100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Does the universe naturally produce complexity and reason? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Clemson University Science Daily Fri, 23 Jan 2015 21:28 CET http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150123102221.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28Latest+Science+News+--+ScienceDaily%29  Recent developments in science are beginning to suggest that the universe naturally produces complexity. The emergence of life in general and perhaps even rational life, with its associated technological culture, may be extremely common, argues Clemson researcher Kelly Smith in a recently published paper in the journal Space Policy. What's more, he suggests, this universal tendency has distinctly religious overtones and may even establish a truly universal basis for morality. Smith, a Philosopher and Evolutionary Biologist, applies recent theoretical developments in Biology and Complex Systems Theory to attempt new answers to the kind of enduring questions about human purpose and obligation that have long been considered the sole province of the humanities. He points out that scientists are increasingly beginning to discuss how the basic structure of the universe seems to favor the creation of complexity. The large scale history of the universe strongly suggests a trend of increasing complexity: disordered energy states produce atoms and molecules, which combine to form suns and associated planets, on which life evolves. Life then seems to exhibit its own pattern of increasing complexity, with simple organisms getting more complex over evolutionary time until they eventually develop rationality and complex culture. And recent theoretical developments in Biology and complex systems theory suggest this trend may be real, arising from the basic structure of the universe in a predictable fashion. "If this is right," says Smith, "you can look at the universe as a kind of 'complexity machine', which raises all sorts of questions about what this means in a broader sense. For example, does believing the universe is structured to produce complexity in general, and rational creatures in particular, constitute a religious belief? It need not imply that the universe was created by a God, but on the other hand, it does suggest that the kind of rationality we hold dear is not an accident." And Smith feels another similarity to religion are the potential moral implications of this idea. If evolution tends to favor the development of sociality, reason, and culture as a kind of "package deal," then it's a good bet that any smart extraterrestrials we encounter will have similar evolved attitudes about their basic moral commitments. In particular, they will likely agree with us that there is something morally special about rational, social creatures. And such universal agreement, argues Smith, could be the foundation for a truly universal system of ethics. Smith will soon take sabbatical to lay the groundwork for a book exploring these issues in more detail. Journal Reference: Kelly C. Smith. Manifest complexity: A foundational ethic for astrobiology? Space Policy, 2014; 30 (4): 209 DOI: 10.1016/j.spacepol.2014.10.004 Comment: Another author has coined a similar approach as "Rational Design Theory": He puts forth his scientifically testable Rational Design Hypothesis at a time when mainstream science relegates any design theory as unscientific. His reverse engineering analysis of biological life confirms convincingly the validation of classical Darwininan evolution (of species), while at the same time questioning the whole neo-Darwinian notion of chemical evolution upon which the chemical soup theory of life's origins hangs its collective hat. Shiller leaves speculation about the identity of the designer largely to the reader, but predicts that one important key to uncovering the signature will be the study of introns. Briant M. Shiller: Origin of Life: The 5th Option http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026596461400085X |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting article on a subject matter that existed nearly a century ago. It has only been over the last few decades that humans have developed technology to study the universe at an indepth level of describable logical scientific definition.
As humans' look inward to understand the creation of evolution (which involves all life/medical science) and it's "effects" on humans' future of life where does belief lead and originated at. I believe the articles is designed to have people look at greater possiblities than just believing what was once thought to be correct and humans are still trying to explain all of its "affects" on life. If each sun is a new solar system (not all having life existing in it at the present time) and has similar elements as ours than where does its future exist. When I say elements, I not only speak of the pieces that we generalize as our daily live's; but the "periodic table of elements". If one look's how life has a circular cycle (a beginning and an end) and the our solar system and universe has the same circular cycle, than does the possiblity exist that our solar system and universe is only a small piece of some bigger existance. I believe they call them galaxies and what exists larger than a galaxy; and so on - so on - so on. The "periodic table of elements" is incomplete. It should fit a circular design. The missing piece lay in another place outside of our present reach of technology to study its true function on life. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting article on a subject matter that existed nearly a century ago. It has only been over the last few decades that humans have developed technology to study the universe at an indepth level of describable logical scientific definition. As humans' look inward to understand the creation of evolution (which involves all life/medical science) and it's "effects" on humans' future of life where does belief lead and originated at. I believe the articles is designed to have people look at greater possiblities than just believing what was once thought to be correct and humans are still trying to explain all of its "affects" on life. If each sun is a new solar system (not all having life existing in it at the present time) and has similar elements as ours than where does its future exist. When I say elements, I not only speak of the pieces that we generalize as our daily live's; but the "periodic table of elements". If one look's how life has a circular cycle (a beginning and an end) and the our solar system and universe has the same circular cycle, than does the possiblity exist that our solar system and universe is only a small piece of some bigger existance. I believe they call them galaxies and what exists larger than a galaxy; and so on - so on - so on. The "periodic table of elements" is incomplete. It should fit a circular design. The missing piece lay in another place outside of our present reach of technology to study its true function on life. as a new sun/solar system is created, it's formed from the remains of an old one that burnt itself out, thus the "recycling pit", as what i like to call the universe... they think that small organisms can survive on comets/meteors, thus moving life around the universe... me personally, i think it's a quantum level events, that all life in the universe is connected that gives us reasoning and comprehension... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting article on a subject matter that existed nearly a century ago. It has only been over the last few decades that humans have developed technology to study the universe at an indepth level of describable logical scientific definition. As humans' look inward to understand the creation of evolution (which involves all life/medical science) and it's "effects" on humans' future of life where does belief lead and originated at. I believe the articles is designed to have people look at greater possiblities than just believing what was once thought to be correct and humans are still trying to explain all of its "affects" on life. If each sun is a new solar system (not all having life existing in it at the present time) and has similar elements as ours than where does its future exist. When I say elements, I not only speak of the pieces that we generalize as our daily live's; but the "periodic table of elements". If one look's how life has a circular cycle (a beginning and an end) and the our solar system and universe has the same circular cycle, than does the possiblity exist that our solar system and universe is only a small piece of some bigger existance. I believe they call them galaxies and what exists larger than a galaxy; and so on - so on - so on. The "periodic table of elements" is incomplete. It should fit a circular design. The missing piece lay in another place outside of our present reach of technology to study its true function on life. as a new sun/solar system is created, it's formed from the remains of an old one that burnt itself out, thus the "recycling pit", as what i like to call the universe... they think that small organisms can survive on comets/meteors, thus moving life around the universe... me personally, i think it's a quantum level events, that all life in the universe is connected that gives us reasoning and comprehension... Using the word "think" is probably best compared to "believe". I am going to have to agree with both points. To chose one would eliminate parts of evolution. Looking at dinasours and extinction. How did life continue after this event? By both possibilities. By surviving underground and what unknown additives from the comet/meteorite that hit earth. I know scientist say meteorite, but do not want to eliminate possibilities of new elements being introduced to earth from a comet. The original subject topic also brings in social human relationship with space science. Social: Why are opportunities limited to humans in areas of science research (violence, greed, acceptance of responsibility, etc.)? Human advancement is limited, due to the above issues. Problems? What to believe is correct in belief systems (not only religion, but science). How to stop science, being used as a weapon against our world. Why do people want to fight. Why do government's (courts) restict topics of potiential discussion in a hearing (accepting responsibility hurts). What we see looking in the night sky is greater than I understand. I personally believe we are a part of a greater entity. I see humans as being intelligent, but perform the same functions as an ant colony (simply put). I do not believe humans have even discovered the limits of what exists and will never discover an actual end if space travel develops into communities, and research and development, travels beyond our present galaxies (its endless). What is not endless is the rate of decay (radioactive), but the energy does not die, only transferred some place else and same as the material that is left. This material is consumed as you said (recycled) and transferred into a new element (the same type) or is used in another elements creation. I agree with you about all life being connected. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mightmoe... You must define what is 'natural' in the Universe!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kind of a small experimental population upon which to base such large claims, if you ask me. Are humans the control population? And if so, what other populations are we being compared against, exactly?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson University Science Daily Fri, 23 Jan 2015 21:28 CET http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150123102221.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28Latest+Science+News+--+ScienceDaily%29 Recent developments in science are beginning to suggest that the universe naturally produces complexity. The emergence of life in general and perhaps even rational life, with its associated technological culture, may be extremely common, argues Clemson researcher Kelly Smith in a recently published paper in the journal Space Policy. What's more, he suggests, this universal tendency has distinctly religious overtones and may even establish a truly universal basis for morality. Smith, a Philosopher and Evolutionary Biologist, applies recent theoretical developments in Biology and Complex Systems Theory to attempt new answers to the kind of enduring questions about human purpose and obligation that have long been considered the sole province of the humanities. He points out that scientists are increasingly beginning to discuss how the basic structure of the universe seems to favor the creation of complexity. The large scale history of the universe strongly suggests a trend of increasing complexity: disordered energy states produce atoms and molecules, which combine to form suns and associated planets, on which life evolves. Life then seems to exhibit its own pattern of increasing complexity, with simple organisms getting more complex over evolutionary time until they eventually develop rationality and complex culture. And recent theoretical developments in Biology and complex systems theory suggest this trend may be real, arising from the basic structure of the universe in a predictable fashion. "If this is right," says Smith, "you can look at the universe as a kind of 'complexity machine', which raises all sorts of questions about what this means in a broader sense. For example, does believing the universe is structured to produce complexity in general, and rational creatures in particular, constitute a religious belief? It need not imply that the universe was created by a God, but on the other hand, it does suggest that the kind of rationality we hold dear is not an accident." And Smith feels another similarity to religion are the potential moral implications of this idea. If evolution tends to favor the development of sociality, reason, and culture as a kind of "package deal," then it's a good bet that any smart extraterrestrials we encounter will have similar evolved attitudes about their basic moral commitments. In particular, they will likely agree with us that there is something morally special about rational, social creatures. And such universal agreement, argues Smith, could be the foundation for a truly universal system of ethics. Smith will soon take sabbatical to lay the groundwork for a book exploring these issues in more detail. Journal Reference: Kelly C. Smith. Manifest complexity: A foundational ethic for astrobiology? Space Policy, 2014; 30 (4): 209 DOI: 10.1016/j.spacepol.2014.10.004 Comment: Another author has coined a similar approach as "Rational Design Theory": He puts forth his scientifically testable Rational Design Hypothesis at a time when mainstream science relegates any design theory as unscientific. His reverse engineering analysis of biological life confirms convincingly the validation of classical Darwininan evolution (of species), while at the same time questioning the whole neo-Darwinian notion of chemical evolution upon which the chemical soup theory of life's origins hangs its collective hat. Shiller leaves speculation about the identity of the designer largely to the reader, but predicts that one important key to uncovering the signature will be the study of introns. Briant M. Shiller: Origin of Life: The 5th Option http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026596461400085X Am I supposed to read ALL of this?.... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mightmoe... You must define what is 'natural' in the Universe! why? do you not know what is natural? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kind of a small experimental population upon which to base such large claims, if you ask me. Are humans the control population? And if so, what other populations are we being compared against, exactly? what others are there? do you know? we can only obtain knowledge from what we know, not what we guess about... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clemson University Science Daily Fri, 23 Jan 2015 21:28 CET http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150123102221.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28Latest+Science+News+--+ScienceDaily%29 Recent developments in science are beginning to suggest that the universe naturally produces complexity. The emergence of life in general and perhaps even rational life, with its associated technological culture, may be extremely common, argues Clemson researcher Kelly Smith in a recently published paper in the journal Space Policy. What's more, he suggests, this universal tendency has distinctly religious overtones and may even establish a truly universal basis for morality. Smith, a Philosopher and Evolutionary Biologist, applies recent theoretical developments in Biology and Complex Systems Theory to attempt new answers to the kind of enduring questions about human purpose and obligation that have long been considered the sole province of the humanities. He points out that scientists are increasingly beginning to discuss how the basic structure of the universe seems to favor the creation of complexity. The large scale history of the universe strongly suggests a trend of increasing complexity: disordered energy states produce atoms and molecules, which combine to form suns and associated planets, on which life evolves. Life then seems to exhibit its own pattern of increasing complexity, with simple organisms getting more complex over evolutionary time until they eventually develop rationality and complex culture. And recent theoretical developments in Biology and complex systems theory suggest this trend may be real, arising from the basic structure of the universe in a predictable fashion. "If this is right," says Smith, "you can look at the universe as a kind of 'complexity machine', which raises all sorts of questions about what this means in a broader sense. For example, does believing the universe is structured to produce complexity in general, and rational creatures in particular, constitute a religious belief? It need not imply that the universe was created by a God, but on the other hand, it does suggest that the kind of rationality we hold dear is not an accident." And Smith feels another similarity to religion are the potential moral implications of this idea. If evolution tends to favor the development of sociality, reason, and culture as a kind of "package deal," then it's a good bet that any smart extraterrestrials we encounter will have similar evolved attitudes about their basic moral commitments. In particular, they will likely agree with us that there is something morally special about rational, social creatures. And such universal agreement, argues Smith, could be the foundation for a truly universal system of ethics. Smith will soon take sabbatical to lay the groundwork for a book exploring these issues in more detail. Journal Reference: Kelly C. Smith. Manifest complexity: A foundational ethic for astrobiology? Space Policy, 2014; 30 (4): 209 DOI: 10.1016/j.spacepol.2014.10.004 Comment: Another author has coined a similar approach as "Rational Design Theory": He puts forth his scientifically testable Rational Design Hypothesis at a time when mainstream science relegates any design theory as unscientific. His reverse engineering analysis of biological life confirms convincingly the validation of classical Darwininan evolution (of species), while at the same time questioning the whole neo-Darwinian notion of chemical evolution upon which the chemical soup theory of life's origins hangs its collective hat. Shiller leaves speculation about the identity of the designer largely to the reader, but predicts that one important key to uncovering the signature will be the study of introns. Briant M. Shiller: Origin of Life: The 5th Option http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026596461400085X Am I supposed to read ALL of this?.... if it doesn't make any sense to ya, why bother? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Add energy ... you increase complexity
Remove energy .. you reduce complexity. A good example would be a black smoker. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kind of a small experimental population upon which to base such large claims, if you ask me. Are humans the control population? And if so, what other populations are we being compared against, exactly? what others are there? do you know? we can only obtain knowledge from what we know, not what we guess about... That's exactly what I mean - humans have nothing to compare themselves against. We're just one sample, and until we find more samples of this supposed rational and moral complexity elsewhere (that occurred naturally, not through training, genetic manipulation, or other influence by humans), these claims are theory at best. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
complex is created only by those who wish and aspire to feel and think of them self as wise or smart...
those who wish so aspire, to find what and how to create happiness for all, on earth, only the simple carers of others will care about, or do. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So this postulates a theoretical elemental synchronicity between us - humans, the control group - and as-yet undiscovered planets that theoretically can support the evolution of life such as we have? Or do I need glasses?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It would be interesting to really see the rest of the universe ....yet impossible
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So this postulates a theoretical elemental synchronicity between us - humans, the control group - and as-yet undiscovered planets that theoretically can support the evolution of life such as we have? Or do I need glasses? life on other planets is likely, according to the math...at least the odds say there is... it's a guessing game, we can't say there is life elsewhere, but can't say there isn't, either... so speculation like this comes up from time to time... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Statistically probable at the very least. It's exciting to think about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Statistically probable at the very least. It's exciting to think about. most people can't really grasp just how big the universe is... this might help some: http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/heic1502a/zoomable/ http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/heic1502a/ the first is a zoomable program of the pic, the second describes the pic |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Universe is infinite.....in this immense universe there are still speculations that we are not the only living beings....i hope we soon findout
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Universe is infinite.....in this immense universe there are still speculations that we are not the only living beings....i hope we soon findout because it's infinite is why it's still a speculation... but they have found signs of off world life in some meteors from around the planet... |
|
|
|
|
