Life Exsists...

[wynn]

I plant an explosive in this printing shop and the end result of such explosive is a freshly bound unabridged English Dictionary in perfect condition and naturally from A-Z.

For life to begin from such an explosion you don't need a dictionary but a number of simple words such as "be, if, why and not" then in a couple of hundred million years you will have not only your dictionary but a computerised wikipaedia and thesaurus as well.

[Dave S]

Yet ironically this bigger picture of our earth and mans stupidity, is in some way a reflection of the way individuals are this world. Smoking is pointing a weapon at oneself. Man is his own enemy.

Man, in his own right has learned and developed to focus first on the negative, and only then does his seek a possitive, what if this thought train were reversed, if we were focused first on the possitive, would we then even see a negative? Yes, the negative would still be there (otherwise the balance would be way off), but would we see it in the same way we see it now? When asked if the glass is 1/2 empty or 1/2 full, depending on what your desired outcome is, it could be negative to see it as 1/2 full or vice-versa, the possitive approach would probably be, what glass?

[vieome]

positive approach would probably be, what glass?

Or great there is something in the glass.

And focus on the negative can only bring man to the define his life by what is wrong with the world. Then again I find psychological test like giving someone a glass filled halfway limited in the full range of choices that one has.

If you give some two glasses. Glass A is empty and Glass B is filled half. Would they still see glass B as half empty?
So I agree to see a negative or a positive in any situation will have to come down to interpretation, and our primative brains with flight or fight response tend to go to flight first for our continued survival.


This farmer had only one horse, and one day the horse ran away. The neighbors came to condole over his terrible loss. The farmer said, "What makes you think it is so terrible?"

A month later, the horse came home--this time bringing with her two beautiful wild horses. The neighbors became excited at the farmer's good fortune. Such lovely strong horses! The farmer said, "What makes you think this is good fortune?"

The farmer's son was thrown from one of the wild horses and broke his leg. All the neighbors were very distressed. Such bad luck! The farmer said, "What makes you think it is bad?"

A war came, and every able-bodied man was conscripted and sent into battle. Only the farmer's son, because he had a broken leg, remained. The neighbors congratulated the farmer. "What makes you think this is good?" said the farmer.

[Dave S]

Vieome, I've heard the horse story, or something similar to it before, to emphasise the balance in nature... For every action, equal reaction, etc. We cannot have the positive without the negative and vice... And with this in mind, life could not exist, without a previous existance of some sort? How we define "life" becomes unimportant, we just know that some form of it must have existed, furthermore, Creation and Evolution then become one and the same thing, would you agree? If life were created, from what was it created, if life has evolved, from what did it evolve, really the same thing at the begining?

[adrianh]

if life has evolved, from what did it evolve

This is like looking at an IBM mainframe and asking the same question.

There is no single easy answer. The answer lies somewhere in "it all sort of came together after lots and lots and lots of trail and error (where trail and error on the part of nature is purely non-directed)"

Thinking that it all had to have a single beginning doesn't make sense. Another example is saying where is the beginning of the Mona Lisa painting. There is no simple beginning.

DaveS - you are trying to apply linear action->result->action->result thinking. You can't use this sort of logic in this situation because it did not follow a linear development path. A more appropriate thought process would be to use fuzzy logic combined with probability theory.

[vieome]

Vieome, I've heard the horse story, or something similar to it before, to emphasise the balance in nature... For every action, equal reaction, etc. We cannot have the positive without the negative and vice... And with this in mind, life could not exist, without a previous existance of some sort? How we define "life" becomes unimportant, we just know that some form of it must have existed, furthermore, Creation and Evolution then become one and the same thing, would you agree? If life were created, from what was it created, if life has evolved, from what did it evolve, really the same thing at the begining?

What created life that is the big question? The very big question and true for now we have to assume it was always there in some form or another in the universe, how it got to earth is another question. Now the question of evolution of life is the next step, this assumes that life is already created or always was there, and how does it change form. Our given knowledge of life on earth and its evolution that the first forms of life, were more or less dead cell bacteria, a cell without a nucleus, this cell fused with mitrochondria(an energy cell) and the fusion of the two gave us our basic first cell of life, this cell divided and thus mutiplied and the different divisions of cells came together to specialize. Then this brings us back to Adrian's question what is LIFE. So if for the sake of argument we saying life is the intake of water, oxygen etc, when do we term something as alive, from the cellular level? from the organ level? or do we go down to the basics and say at the atomic level we can deem something to be called life. In that case life is just the field of energy that runs through the universe and energy is just always there.

What is life=What color is a chameleon on a mirror

And I guess that is where we get the fuzzy logic that Adrian talks about. Which I guess takes us to Schrondinger's cat

Erwin Schrodinger proposed a theoretical experiment in which a cat was put in a steel box along with a vial of hydrocyanic acid along with a tiny amount of a radioactive substance. If just one atom of this decayed during the test period, it would trigger a sequence in which a hammer would break the vial and kill the cat. As long as the box stayed closed, you wouldn't know whether this had happened or not, so according to quantum law and the superposition of states, the cat is both alive and dead at one and the same time. It's only when you take a measurement, ie look in the box, that the superposition ceases to be and the cat is either alive or dead. The paradox is that observation (=measurement) affects the outcome, so the outcome doesn't exist until the measurement is made.

[Dave S]

Absolutely, Adrian, a logic as we apply it doesn't work in this scenario, as we are limited by what we know or can assume to know, fuzzy logic on the other hand, does not follow the same bias as we mere mortals, is it not really just another form of the chicken or the egg question?

Probability and Possibility are theories that have 50/50 chances at best, for instance, the dice theorim, if a dice is thrown 100 times and lands on 7, 66.66666...% of the time, the Probability dictates that every third throw should be a 7, Possibility, however shows that the dice only has a 1 in 12 chance of landing on 7, only 8.3333333...%. However, logic says that the dice still only has a 50/50 chance of landing on any number at all, I choose 7, it can land on my 7, or it can land on some other number, my chance at the 7 was still 50/50.

[adrianh]

The point that I am trying to make is that saying that there has to be a specific point at which life began is incorrect. It is like asking to pinpoint the exact time, date and water droplet that created a river. At best one can say that the river started more or less there at more or less that time with water of more or less that region. You simply can't do better than that because there is no single cause.

[wynn]

And who is to say that our universe is not expanding as a result of having been sucked into and is now on the other side of a black hole from another universe.
There is a theory that the universe is a skin, either wavy or like the skin of a weird shaped bubble and where that bubble touches the skin of other bubbles in a theorized multiverse is where the black holes are?

[Dave S]

And who is to say that our universe is not expanding as a result of having been sucked into and is now on the other side of a black hole from another universe.
There is a theory that the universe is a skin, either wavy or like the skin of a weird shaped bubble and where that bubble touches the skin of other bubbles in a theorized multiverse is where the black holes are?

Kind of like when bubbles touch each other, they will either burst or join together and become one?