Time and information of Guillemenant

[Janic]

Out have little watch grow, for example a bamboo (up to 90 cm / day!), Without seeing an outside intervention.

That is correct, we see nothing as for any process in progress without knowing the means and circumstances which presided over it.

Your whole reasoning is based on the comparison between manufactured product and life form, deliberately reversing the comparative chronology. Without this psychic device, all your reasoning collapses.

You should be more careful with what I write! In my comparison it is not a question of chronology, but of comparable mechanisms (what I have already said and written). In terms of chronology, the mineral precedes the living and according to your theory it is from this mineral like that of the machines that the living would have come out! Demonstrate it, prove it without possible scientific challenge. You can't do it: full stop!

The theory of self-organization would have us believe the opposite by claiming that it is from this raw material that these mechanisms appeared, as if by chance! it's like you say? ...

The theory of self-organization is based on the observation of living and non-living phenomena.

It is based on assumptions, not on indisputable evidence. However, your indicated references give only assumptions, no demonstration and even less proof.

Conversely in the body of a woman, nobody is at work to manufacture the embryo which it carries if it is not a fantastic process of cellular assembly.

A process that did not start on its own contrary to your theory of self-organization, unprovable and unproven.

I fully understand that it is the greatest evil to imagine the passage from the non living to the living, but there is no impossibility.

This is the difference between there is no impossibility (theoretical ... unpredictable and unproven) and the evidence currently absent. So do not put the cart before the horse.

Viruses are located on the border between the living and the non-living, and it is currently possible to produce them from scratch from synthetic genes.

Always to confuse a synthetic product and the living. Viruses are considered non-living because they are unable to reproduce directly, yet they are features that could be considered living.

American scientists announce that they have just succeeded in artificially manufacturing a bacteriophage (virus infecting only bacteria) in two weeks. It is then completely virulent and indistinguishable from the natural virus. This announcement revives speculation about the possibility of the creation of new living organisms by humans.

https://www.futura-sciences.com/sante/a ... omme-2744/
Such viruses are derived from chemical synthesis, it is quite possible that such processes are generated under certain conditions such as near volcanic chimneys.

Your point of view does not quite correspond to the article!
The volcanic chimneys are not laboratories where the conditions are selected to obtain a chosen, targeted result, which has nothing to do with natural environments with conditions favorable to the reproduction of living things which are much more complex.
Probably another announcement effect, as highlighted in the article in question. Beware of imitations! This article gives no details on the processes used.
So GMOs are similar to this kind of DIY because DNA is ultimately rather simple in constitution: 4 amino acids well sequenced, sugars, phosphate and a hydrogen bond and voila… apparently; because, to my knowledge, DNA is only reproduced by breaking the hydrogen bond and reconstituting the missing elements, not by chance! This raises the question of its first constitution, especially when each part, taken alone, is often incompatible with the others like sugar and amino acids. And a DNA sequence lost like that, all alone in a hostile environment, too acidic or too basic, too cold or too hot, etc ... without useful function, it's not great!
Miller also obtained synthetic amino acids and this did not go further, because these synthetic products did not have the characteristics of that of living organisms. So that other products are synthesized, with the means we currently have this is no longer a performance, the question is rather to control the action in the short, medium and long term to check the risks for the living. The absorption of mercury, lead, much less sophisticated have caused intoxication, fatal degradation, but controllable since limited in time! What would happen to these viral "creations" that the immune systems would no longer be able to control? Science without conscience is the death of the soul »If there is consciousness, obviously! But the research virus has no cure!

I answered it! If you had read and remembered all the quotes made, among hundreds of references from evolutionists around the world, you would know! Reread the whole from the start it will keep you useful.

You only cited scientists who questioned mechanistic Darwinism.

Oh no! On the living, this called into question the appearance of life itself given the complexity requiring it, no Darwin on the adaptation of life forms to the surrounding environment!

What is more, most of his challenges were by no means demonstrated but were merely a remark.

There it is correct! To say that such a thing is impossible indeed depends on the knowledge of the moment. This is why scientists were in the evolutionary discourse of the moment which demonstrated nothing but opinions, pompously called hypotheses, from where:

Science is not built with advice but with demonstrations.

[Ahmed]

It is impossible, to date, to create a somewhat complex form of life, which is rather a good thing since it is impossible to assess the use that would be made of it, but therefore what a positive lesson can we get it? I still don't understand it.

[sen-no-sen]

Out have little watch grow, for example a bamboo (up to 90 cm / day!), Without seeing an outside intervention.

That is correct, we see nothing as for any process in progress without knowing the means and circumstances which presided over it.

It is undeniable, and what are the processes involved in the growth of a plant and an animal then?
There is no way to demonstrate the existence of an external intervention (type creators I hear), therefore your remark is only a pure hypothesis founded through a particular type of belief.
Except between an unfounded and non-verifiable belief and an observation based on rebuttable criteria there is no photo ...

It is based on assumptions, not on indisputable evidence. However, your indicated references give only assumptions, no demonstration and even less proof.

There is no area of ​​science that could be considered indisputable.
Science is based on criteria of refutability.
You obviously confuse dogma and science ...

You should be more careful with what I write! In my comparison it is not a question of chronology, but of comparable mechanisms (what I have already said and written). In terms of chronology, the mineral precedes the living and according to your theory it is from this mineral like that of the machines that the living would have come out! Demonstrate it, prove it without possible scientific challenge. You can't do it: full stop!

You should think about the concept of chronology ... if we compare a machine to a form of life it is precisely because of historicity.
The machine appears well after living, this is indisputable.
Therefore to take a contemporary example as compared the brain to a computer is a mistake.
Overall this kind of example serves to facilitate the understanding of complex things by comparing them with simpler elements, so we can accept the analogy, however, always keeping in mind that the computer is a pale copy of the brain , not the other way around.

A process that did not start on its own, unlike ta theory of self-organization, unprovable and unproven.

It's doing me too much honor!
The concept of self-organization is unfortunately not my idea, but of people much more gifted than me!

[Ahmed]

The question of chronology is interesting (despite its obvious nature): Aristotle is one (perhaps the only one of his time?) of the rare Greeks to have been interested in technique and it should be noted that linguistics helped to bring this closer together, since one of the terms he uses, "organon" indicates both the biological organ and the tool.

Sen-no-sen, you write:

... but people much more gifted than me!

Rather from various specialists in the subject, therefore more competent ... But I guess it's a shortcut!

[sen-no-sen]

Sen-no-sen, you write:

... but people much more gifted than me!

Rather from various specialists in the subject, therefore more competent ... But I guess it's a shortcut!

More competent and more talented then!

The question of chronology is interesting (despite its obvious nature): Aristotle is one (perhaps the only one of his time?) Of the rare Greeks to have been interested in technique and it should be noted that linguistics helped in this connection. , since one of the terms he uses, "organon" designates both the biological organ and the tool.

It is indeed obvious ...
However the discussion, if it did not go around in circles could have led us to a question of how avant-garde developed by many physicists like Archibald Wheeler, Stephen Hawking, or Andrei Linde, namely that according to quantum theory past phenomena could be configured by our current observations.
We name this theory top-down approach... it is not drawn from a delusional brain but from disturbing experiences:
https://www.futura-sciences.com/sciences/actualites/physique-etrange-experience-wheeler-verifiee-espace-10413/

An experiment, the principle of which was proposed in 1978 by the great physicist John Wheeler, was carried out once again, but this time using satellites reflecting laser beams. This experiment puzzles physicists because, according to certain interpretations, it could indicate that, in a certain way, the future can sometimes influence the past ...

[Ahmed]

These phenomena are observed on a quantum scale, that is to say that they concern very small particles. What about the macroscopic scale that concerns us more directly? And on the various possible futures? I admit that all of this seems very intriguing to me.

[sen-no-sen]

These phenomena are observed on a quantum scale, that is to say that they concern very small particles. What about the macroscopic scale that concerns us more directly? And on the various possible futures? I admit that all of this seems very intriguing to me.

It is the least we can say!
The idea developed in particular by Hawking is that the Universe in which we live is a tiny possibility within a Meta-universe.
Thus our future as our past would not be completely determined but partially configured.
From this point of view there is a real paradigm shift looming, and the word is weak.
This does not invalidate past research, but allows a much finer understanding of the phenomena.
For example, in the framework of the theory of evolution, the contributions of quantum physics make it possible to refer to the nettle the notion of chance, a term that is used everywhere and does not explain much.
This one also makes it possible to sweep away the concept of intelligent design, once and for all.

Some press articles mainstream on the quantum aspect of the Universe:

The self-organized quantum universe
A new approach to the problem of quantum gravity, which has plagued physicists for decades, proposes that bricks of space and time assemble and self-organize to generate the Universe as we know it.

http://www.pourlascience.fr/ewb_pages/a/article-l-univers-quantique-auto-organise-18532.php

The idea that quantum theory is limited to the microscopic world is also very widespread among the general public. In his successful book The Elegant Universe, Brian Greene of Columbia University, for example, writes that quantum theory "provides the theoretical framework to understand the Universe on the smallest scales". Classical physics - that is to say, any non-quantum theory, therefore the theories of relativity too - would describe the Universe on the largest scales.

This compartmentalization of the physical world is a myth. Few physicists today attribute to classical physics the same status as quantum physics. To them, classical physics is only a useful approximation in a world that is quantum on all scales. The discretion of quantum phenomena on our scale is not due to the size in itself of the systems, but to the way in which they interact. For ten years, physicists have multiplied experiments in which quantum effects manifest themselves on the macroscopic scale, which we can see are much more present than we suspected. They could even play a role in our cells!

http://www.pourlascience.fr/ewb_pages/a/article-vivre-dans-un-monde-quantique-27830.php

What is quite interesting is that for the specialists of the subject this notion seems acquired, most of the reluctance generally emanates from people who oppose it only against ideological argumentation fruit of the mechanistic conception of the 19th century.

[Janic]

It is impossible, to date, to create a somewhat complex life form,

It is not about more or less! Either it is actually a form of life (and not having some characteristics of living things like viruses, Miller's amino acids were) or it is not, he even "created" some that did not exist. not in the living world!

which is rather a good thing since it is impossible to assess the use that would be made of it,

History behind us teaches us, except to be blind! Everything, absolutely everything, is diverted from a supposed objective for humanist ends to serve mercantile interests (it is your specialty that the economy and its deviances). Unfortunately we confuse the necessary search for knowledge, in general, and the use that will be made of it: example nuclear which is the subject of debate and controversy

but therefore what positive lesson can we draw from it? I still don't understand it.

Before drawing any lessons from it, we must already verify its credibility through experimentation, this is also what a multiplicity of possible choices is for.
Assuming, the SI in question, that the theory of evolution, (which in Sen no sen is supported by this self-organization), turns out to be false (which would be on the level of flat or round earth) What lesson should we draw from this?
However, for most of humanity, this is neither positive nor negative, since the major concern of the latter is reduced to surviving with or without self-organization. It is therefore more a question of taking sides, by philosophical, social, religious or scientific choice when one has a full stomach.
It is therefore exactly as in politics where, for various reasons, some opt for the right, others for the left, the center, the "extremes" and who as soon as they come to power take action on the ground, what their opponents have built; It is the law of its kind! Evolutionism is only the counterpart of the change of hand of the taxing power (which does not prejudge whether it was better before or not)
What "teaching" each will then draw from his choice, I cannot answer it (I am not Madame Soleil ... for those who know it) any more than it is possible to respond to evolutionary or non-evolutionary choices, the reasons being often more cultural than truly scientific.
We see this in the case of H. which creates fierce opposition from a large part of the A conditioned by their university studies, and who refuse any practice other than their own: dogma, the single way, in question. Heretics who refuse to be limited to a single therapeutic form, at risk, have taken another path, whose credibility by experimenting on millions of patients provides proof of its positive role (scientifically proven or not). This does not prevent his opponents from wanting at all costs to discredit it in principle, only. " Experience (and not only experimentation) single source of truth »Auguste Lumière… aptly named! Evolutionism has discredited creationism in a certain way, does not refuse its own questioning whether it comes from outside as from inside, moreover!

this partitioning of the physical world is a myth. few physicists today attribute to classical physics the same status as quantum physics. in their eyes, classical physics is only a useful approximation in a world that is quantum on all scales. the discretion of quantum phenomena on our scale is not due to the size in itself of the systems, but to the way in which they interact. for ten years, physicists have multiplied experiments or manifested on a macroscopic scale quantum effects, which we see that they are much more present than we suspected. they could even play a role in our cells!

I'm going to be told that it's an obsession, but it's exactly the discourse that separates the A from the H. and let's see what it does:

this partitioning of the therapeutic world is a myth. few doctors today attribute to classical medicine the same status as homeopathic medicine. in their eyes, classical medicine is only a useful approximation in a world which is homeopathic on all scales. The discretion of homeopathic phenomena on our scale does not depend on the size of the systems per se, but on the way in which they interact. for 200 years, homeopaths have been experimenting with more and more "quantum" effects on a macroscopic scale, which we realize are much more present than we suspected. they could even play a role in our cells !

[Janic]

Janic wrote:
Out have little watch grow, for example a bamboo (up to 90 cm / day!), Without seeing an outside intervention.

That is correct, we see nothing as for any process in progress without knowing the means and circumstances which presided over it.

It is undeniable, and what are the processes involved in the growth of a plant and an animal then?
There is no way to demonstrate the existence of an external intervention (type creators I hear), therefore your remark is only a pure hypothesis founded through a particular type of belief.

Everything is just belief! You believe in a certain form of materialist science, which sees in matter its reason for being matter and it is an option which is well worth another, but thus confusing cause and effect.
An external intervention separates the two, it's just another option, another belief then which is well worth the first!

Except between an unfounded and non-verifiable belief and an observation based on rebuttable criteria there is no photo ...

You're going in circles! To say unfounded is only a point of view… unfounded, or rather based on a philosophical choice, you think whether or not that's all! Not verifiable? it is also a point of view based on a materialist choice only, granting to this matter the limits of knowledge which, fortunately goes far beyond the borders, of our current knowledge. Klein said: " Discoveries do not increase our knowledge, but the knowledge of our ignorance. Etienne Klein

It is based on assumptions, not on indisputable evidence. However, your indicated references give only assumptions, no demonstration and even less proof.

Because it is you who calls for proof, not me, I simply note that you miss it sorely as for the rest. The only proof that I have indicated is that the world which is ours and where life abounds is the proof of its creation, and it is your right not to consider it as such as I consider that the self-organization is not one: "point barre"

There is no area of ​​science that could be considered indisputable.
Science is based on criteria of refutability.

Unless this refutation disturbs the criteria retained by the doctrinaires of evolution and self-organization. You confuse, once again, THE science which is not kidnappable by some to self-justify their supposed scientific beliefs, and pseudo scientific assumptions.

You obviously confuse dogma and science ...

This is what I blame you for, you confuse dogma and science considering the self-organization of the living as a fact whereas it is only supposition, which some researchers try to demonstrate, but without convincing result.

You should be more careful with what I write! In my comparison it is not a question of chronology, but of comparable mechanisms (what I have already said and written). In terms of chronology, the mineral precedes the living and according to your theory it is from this mineral like that of machines that the living would have come out! Demonstrate it, prove it without possible scientific challenge. You can't do it: full stop!

You should think about the concept of chronology ... if we compare a machine to a form of life it is precisely because of historicity.
The machine appears well after living, this is indisputable.

What is indisputable is that the raw material could not give rise to the phenomenon of life, by self-organization, (according to our current knowledge) and all broke their teeth there. However, raw, mineral matter is the same as computers, which are not alive, but simply pale copies of this living being in question. The day when the demonstration that life comes from the intrinsic organization of mineral matter, there will always be time to change paradigm.

Therefore to take a contemporary example as compared the brain to a computer is a mistake.

It is not an error, but just a comparison intended to show that the raw material, is and cannot be life, itself, which is not intrinsic to it.

Overall this kind of example is used to facilitate the understanding of complex things by comparing them with simpler elements,we can therefore accept the analogy always keeping in mind that the computer is a pale copy of the brain, not the other way around.

Who said the contrary ? because :

A process that did not start on its own, unlike ta theory of self-organization, unprovable and unproven.

It's doing me too much honor!

It's not which the response of the shepherd to the shepherdess following the fact of wanting to attribute to me this which does not come from me, but quotes from people much more gifted than me !

[sen-no-sen]

Everything is just belief! You believe in some form of materialistic science, who sees matter as its reason for being matter and it is an option that is well worth another, but thus confusing cause and effect.
An external intervention separates the two, it's just another option, another belief then which is well worth the first!

It is an inference on your part, matter does not exist in absolute terms, it is simply the term that we use to designate interactions on our scale, materialism is a thought inherited from the 19th century and which now have a lot of lead in the wing ...
Regarding beliefs:
We generally designate by belief the act of considering something to be true.
From this we can determine two types of beliefs:rational beliefs, verified as for example heliocentrism and beliefs of a non-refutable character, not observed, like that of god, fairies etc ... exceptwhat is said without evidence can be refuted without evidence.
Putting both types of approach on an equal footing is a manifest error, not to say a desire to deceive (?).

This is what I reproach you for, you confuse dogma and science considering the self-organization of the living as a fact whereas it is only supposition, which some researchers try to demonstrate, but without convincing result.

But the self-organization of the living is a fact my dear friend, it is moreover more a fact than the roundness of the earth, because everyone can see it with their own eyes! When you hurt yourself your skin heals on its own, it is not an obscure god who launches its "after sales service" to start repairs!
What has not yet been 100% demonstrated is the self-organization of non-living structures into living structures, nuance!
Let the scientific research time show us all this, however on a theoretical level this notion has been acquired for a long time.
The idea that is beginning to develop is that of quantum biology, which moves away from the strictly mechanistic vision that we still find in Darwinism.