Физика, възникване на живота - дали "новата идея" на Джеръми Ингланд е толкова нова и революционна? - Is it really a groundbreaking idea about Life - the one of Jeremy England? - a comment

http://t.co/Y29qbipm3t

 

This Physicist Has A Groundbreaking Idea About Why Life Exists

It could liberate biologists from relying too much on a Darwinian explanation.

ow.ly

Български: "Физик с революционна идея относно причините да съществува живот"

 

Natalie Wolchover, Quanta Magazine

Dec. 8, 2014, 4:48 PM
 754,866
  138
 

Read more: http://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/#ixzz3LetNEgpj

http://www.businessinsider.com/groundbreaking-idea-of-lifes-origin-2014-12

...

English: Sorry, this came as a comment in a social network, I'm lazy to translate it right now - in short, see Schopenhauer's conception of "The Will [to live]" that comes from the all levels of the objectivation of the will, including the basic physical forces.

---

Коментар на Т.А.:

Медиите обикновено правят нещата да изглеждат по-сензационни, отколкото са. В детайлите и математическите дефиниции сигурно е оригинална идея, особено за специализирани физици, в контекста на термодинамиката, разпространение на енергия и пр.                      

Read more: http://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/#ixzz3Lf13nrs7


Но в контекста на по-абстрактно виждане за живота и еволюцията - виж други интердисциплинарни учени, например Владимир Турчин, Борис Казаченко, които мислят по-абстрактно от Дарвин за еволюцията на Вселената, т.нар. мета-еволюция и кибернетична еволюция, виж и скорошна статия от автора: http://artificial-mind.blogspot.com/2014/08/abstract-evolution-cybernetic-meta.html

Като цяло още Лайбниц, ако не греша, изказва мисли за нашия свят като "Най-добрият от възможните светове".

Да не говорим за яснотата при Шопенхауер, който изпреварва както дарвинизма - с десетилетия, - така и "антропния принцип" (с много повече); последният е именно относно това, че физичните "настройки" пасват на живота. В статията въобще не се споменава.

 


Системата на Шопенхауер - стълбата на обективациите на Волята
 

В системата на Шопенхауер животът е поставен в изрична йерархична стълбица и в еволюционно развитие, дори на едно място се споменава за това, че първият човек вероятно е роден от маймуна.

По-висшите форми на живот представляват все по-отчетлива форма на това, което той нарича именно... Воля за живот.

Т.е. животът е резултатът на продължително действие на "Воля" и натрупване на резултатите от нея, а не е случаен - макар че Волята на ниско ниво не е съзнателна.

Шопенхауер изрично отбелязва, че съответните живи същества са неразривно свързани със средата си и им е "позволено" да възникнат и да се развиват така че да й паснат и да съществуват в нея; например дава примери с подобни на вид животни на отдалечени места и с различно родословие, които са се приспособили към средата, под силата на единна Воля за живот.

При дарвинизма това е т.нар. "паралелна еволюция", която показва, че процесът на е случаен, а е обусловен от систематични фактори - белтъчният субстрат, съществуващ до момента + условията на средата.

Това, което във физиката са физични сили - и се моделират чрез физични закони, - в системата на Шопнехауер не са нещо хвърчащо в нищото, те са нисши форми на Волята, те подпомагат обективацията на Волята [за живот], превръщат т.нар. "нещо в себе си" (Кант) или "Воля за живот" (Шопенхауер) в "явление" (Кант) и "видимост на волята" (Шопенхауер).

Хората са висша форма на тези сили, висша форма на физични закони, висша форма на Воля.

...

Не на последно място, елегантните формули не могат да заобиколят "конфигурацията" -  началната форма, подредбата - освен ако във формулата не се включи определение на цялата Вселена.

Литература:

1. Артур Шопенхауер, "За четворния принцип на закона за достатъчното основание" (On the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason")
2. Артур Шопенхауер, "Волята в природата" ("The Will in Nature")
3. Артур Шопенхауер - "Светът като воля и представа"
3. Артур Шопенхауер - "Прарегра и Паралипомена"
4. Владимир Турчин - "Феноменът на науката" (Phenomenon of science)
5. Борис Казаченко - (search: Boris Kazachenko)
6. Тодор Арнаудов, "Теория на разума и Вселената, 2001-2004"
7. Todor Arnaudov, Thursday, August 7, 2014 - http://artificial-mind.blogspot.com/2014/08/abstract-evolution-cybernetic-meta.html 

Read More

Examples of Superficial Research with obvious results, however done by "Elite" institutes

Murphy's laws, toasts and tables

Recently physicists "have finally discovered" why the slices of bread in the majority of occasions fall on the side of the "cream". They made more than 100 tests with different slices, blah-blah-blah...

I remember I've asked that question myself and have found the probable answer by mental simulation of how the slice could be dropped (nearly the end of the table, while spreading the butter or whatever), and how the slice could rotate.

That's not a coin, it always starts falling with the creamed side up, and it's supposed not to have strong rotational forces and is usually either on the table or slightly above it.

The answer certainly doesn't require 100 tests before seeing the "physics" of falling from the table after dropping, it requires a bit of imagination and I suspect that thousands of physicists have answered the questions by a mental experiment and didn't publish it, because it's too trivial - a part of the irony of this "paradox" is that the reason is obvious.

In order to mark something obvious as science though - it should be "backed" with explicit pedantic nonsense, otherwise "it's not proven by data". 

Besides, the real problem is that toast falls on the ground. Falling on the other side is a disaster either... :)

http://www.vesti.bg/tehnologii/nauka-i-tehnika/zashto-filijkata-pada-vinagi-otkym-namazanata-si-strana-5992999

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2410532/Why-toast-falls-butter-Scientists-finally-uncover-reason--height-table.html


How sleep deprivation changes facial features

This work has found that after sleep deprivation people look more tired (!), more threatening, less socially attractive etc. and it may affect the way other people see you and react etc.

WOW, really?! That's an amazing discovery, we had no idea!

They have taken pictures of 20 people's fresh faces after 8 hours of sleep and their faces after 31 hours without sleep and asked people to measure this and that. "The scientists then asked 40 other individuals to rate the pictures according to 10 different facial features, fatigue, and sadness. "*

They admit that "it's well known from a long time" (from the beginning of time, in my opinion), but now the specific features have been quantitatively measured.

Well, good morning guys...

Without reading those ground-braking research I could generalize in one sentence, that sleep deprived face looks "tired", it often has more shadows under the eyes, the facial muscles have probably lost their tone and are extended and the skin of the face looks flabby etc., the eyelids look "tired" as well - falling down etc. Well - I think it was depicted even in a calssical episode of "Tom and Jerry". :)

Actually I also have my own "research data" for that extraordinary discovery - I have taken pictures of myself after sleep deprivation, to "see quantatively the difference". However I wouldn't show those pictures, namely due to those differences... :)

They look scary etc. etc. :)That's why one should avoid showing off in public when too tired - it's an everyday wisdom...

As of the data needed to make the research - they did it the way the textbooks say. However, there are simpler ways - like I've done, or open facebook and browse the pictures of your more "socially active" friends who post in the end of parties and when looking fresh - plenty of data without need of specially set up "experiments".

There's another way too - browse for such pictures of celebrities on parties, without make-up, with make-up in movies etc., to see the difference - i.e. how they "should" look when they're supposed to look attractive, "trustworty", "...", and how they look after being captured drunk, without make-up in the morning etc. You may exaggerate the trends you have noticed.

The above is an example regarding what I was talking about in the post about the guys in the AGI community, who lack the luxury of  money/funding,  partners or organization to execute all the experiments they want and imagine to test their theories.

http://artificial-mind.blogspot.com/2013/08/issues-on-agiri-agi-email-list-and-agi.html

In many cases a clever one can get the same results by a few seconds of thought experiments or by taking two pictures of one person, or a few pictures of a few persons, and then summing the results in 5 minutes.

Well, yes - however your higher intelligence and understanding and rapid focus on the right questions and answers won't get you rewarded  in that case - you do it too easy and too "unscientifically"...


See also:

 https://www.facebook.com/NeuroscienceResearchTechniques?ref=stream&hc_location=stream

 http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1112936722/sleep-deprivation-affects-facial-features-083113/

Read More

Richard Feynman - a Great Person, Physicist and a Born to be an Actor and Comedian. Talks Worth Listening To. In Memoriam

I recommend all of his talks for inspiration and fun. He's a hybrid of an ingenious physicist and a very talented actor and comedian - reminds me of Robert De Niro and Al Pacino; it's something about their common New York accent.

Richard Feynman, the Nobel, 'It's a pain in the neck.'





Richard Feynman - The Character of Physical Law - Part 7 Seeking New Laws (full version)



Feynman on Scientific Method. (Related closely to General Intelligence principles in AGI)







Richard Feynman - The Distinction of Past and Future.



BTW, a POV to irreversability of mine -- it's because of the bad communication between particles. The smallest particles/details, whatever their nature is, are correlated too much and are harder to be controlled by an external structure than to do what's already "encoded". It's hard to cause an action without causing by-effects which are uncontrollable or undesirable, but also unavoidable - that's related to the "quantum uncertainty".

The smallest particles are what drives causation, and they are supposed to have the smallest equivalents of computing power and memory compared to bigger particles; that's why their "behavior" is the simplest, have the shortest scope and seems "chaotic".

Feynman 'Fun to Imagine' 1: Jiggling Atoms



... All of the series ...

Feynman 'Fun to Imagine' 4: Magnets (and 'Why?' questions...)



Richard Feynman - The Character of Physical Law - Part 6 Probability and Uncertainty (full version)


Thanks to Alexander for sharing a link to some of Feynman's talks.

Read More