Jkemp Posted October 22, 2014 Author Share Posted October 22, 2014 Human free will is an illusion. p31 Ridicules free will under the presumption that it had to arise by evolution alone. "Though we feel that we can choose what we do, our understanding of the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets." "It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is detrmined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is an illusion." This is the 5th item down: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Nave-html/faithpathh/hawkingpres2.html To the second question the universe being an Isolated System as defined below What is an Isolated System? A system is a collection of two or more objects. An isolated system is a system thatF is free from the influence of a net external force that alters the momentum of the system. There are two criteria for the presence of a net external force; it must be... a force that originates from a source other than the two objects of the system a force that is not balanced by other forces. A system in which the only forces that contribute to the momentum change of an individual object are the forces acting between the objects themselves can be considered an isolated system. Consider the collision of two balls on the billiards table. The collision occurs in an isolated system as long as friction is small enough that its influence upon the momentum of the billiard balls can be neglected. If so, then the only unbalanced forces acting upon the two balls are the contact forces that they apply to one another. These two forces are considered internal forces since they result from a source within the system - that source being the contact of the two balls. For such a collision, total system momentum is conserved. Source: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/momentum/Lesson-2/Isolated-Systems It is not a fact the universe is, by definition, an isolated system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 As per your two criteria ( only instance of actually applying real science )... -Nothing can originate from outside the 'system' when dealing with the universe, which is by definition, 'all there is'. -Any internal forces which lead to an imbalance, cannot contribute to a net imbalance because there is nothing else to relate it to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunshaker Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 As per your two criteria ( only instance of actually applying real science )... -Nothing can originate from outside the 'system' when dealing with the universe, which is by definition, 'all there is'. -Any internal forces which lead to an imbalance, cannot contribute to a net imbalance because there is nothing else to relate it to. Are you dismissing the multiverse ? Perhaps where dark energy originates, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 "By creating life, the universe creates energy and life plays the same role as any other energy source." is not there, but you have it highlighted as if it came from that site. What is the connection of free will and energy? What is outside the universe that makes it not isolated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
For Prose Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Bottom line: Earth is a tiny speck in the mind-boggling vastness of space. At least this I can wholeheartedly agree with over and over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unity+ Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Strange, Point taken on non sequitur, I will focus on this. Newtons 3rd law is where I'm coming from -- Life is an equal and opposite reaction. Well, this would involve adventuring into the philosophical perspectives, which is not a science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jkemp Posted October 23, 2014 Author Share Posted October 23, 2014 I agree, it's not science. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Bottom line: Earth is a tiny speck in the mind-boggling vastness of space.. At least this I can wholeheartedly agree with over and over again. While I agree that this is true, I fail to see the relevance. JKemp seemed to be suggesting that because there is so much we don't yet know, this somehow throws doubt on what we do know. But that doesn't follow. It assumes that when we explore more of the universe, do more experiments, make more observations, gather more data, etc. that this will inevitably overthrow what we currently know. But it might not. It might just confirm and strengthen our current theories. Also, while we might be a tiny insignificant speck in the universe, it is also possible (*) that we are the only intelligent life. Which would make us both insignificant and significant! (*) I don't want to get into an argument about how likely or not that is. There is no data either way. Human free will is an illusion. You still haven't explained the relevance of this to the "life/energy" question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jkemp Posted October 23, 2014 Author Share Posted October 23, 2014 Strange, I agree with you to a point, and you are correct. If we follow what we do know, and what we have learned, there is a pattern. The more we learn about gravity, matter, energy and life; we begin to see a bigger picture. My thought is life is simply an extension, a natural part of the universe. (This is technically noise) Life can be created, humans have done it. http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/05/21/venter.qa/ The relevance of the question would be in how we frame/classify the product "life." My thinking was/is gravity, matter and energy are used to create life and the creation of life can/should be considered the creation of energy.(philosophical perspective) (This is technically noise also) I sincerely don't believe earth is the only rock in the universe capable of producing life, I'm confident there are so many more unique things in the universe than us. (This is pure noise) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 My thinking was/is gravity, matter and energy are used to create life and the creation of life can/should be considered the creation of energy. While it seems likely that life will always require matter and energy, the need for gravity is less obvious. Other than providing the mechanism whereby matter gets concentrated into useful lumps such as planets, I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 While it seems likely that life will always require matter and energy, the need for gravity is less obvious. Other than providing the mechanism whereby matter gets concentrated into useful lumps such as planets, I suppose. And stars, which convert mass into energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 True. Without gravity, the universe would be a near vacuum containing about 75% hydrogen and 25% helium (and a tiny amount of lithium) at a temperature of 3 kelvin. Not a great place for life. So maybe gravity is essential after all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 My thought is life is simply an extension, a natural part of the universe. (This is technically noise) "Extension" and "life" seem to me to be the noisy and inaccurate parts of this statement. Living things are simply more efficient at taking in energy from the environment and dissipating it as heat than non-living things are. "Natural part of the universe" seems unnecessary. Can you give any examples of anything that isn't naturally part of the universe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 and the creation of life can/should be considered the creation of energy. I'm still not sure what you mean by this. Do you really mean the creation of energy (from nothing)? In which case you are proposing the impossible. Or do you just mean the conversion of matter or energy into another form of energy? If so, what energy are you talking about? Are you suggesting that life itself, is some sort of energy? A form of vitalism? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jkemp Posted October 23, 2014 Author Share Posted October 23, 2014 Phi, Given the context of the question and using this definition, "of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something." My answer is no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunshaker Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 I'm still not sure what you mean by this. Do you really mean the creation of energy (from nothing)? In which case you are proposing the impossible. Or do you just mean the conversion of matter or energy into another form of energy? If so, what energy are you talking about? Are you suggesting that life itself, is some sort of energy? A form of vitalism? From what i gather from Jkemp, that without consciousness matter dwells in a undetermined state of probability, And energy and matter can only be know by probabilities. So without life/consciousness energy/matter is just a possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jkemp Posted October 23, 2014 Author Share Posted October 23, 2014 (edited) Do you really mean the creation of energy (from nothing)? No, although that is an idea the Big Bang Theory puts forward. In which case you are proposing the impossible. Yes, I agree and I'm not proposing that at all. do you just mean the conversion of matter or energy into another form of energy? Yes, sort of, again going back to the original question (which I very poorly phrased); would it be wrong/improper to consider life a form of energy? what energy are you talking about? That would be very tough to completely answer, but let's start with heat. Are you suggesting that life itself, is some sort of energy? Yes, that is exactly what I'm suggesting. Life can/could/should be classified as a type of energy. A form of vitalism? I did not know anything about vitalism; but having read a little (I will read a lot more). My initial answer is yes. Thank you for the information! Edited October 23, 2014 by Jkemp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 JKemp, could you please give the definition you are using for 'energy'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acme Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Arguably what is noise to one may be music to another. In any case this all should have been started in philosophy rather than physics. Energy is well defined in physics and under that defining cannot be created or destroyed. Life therefore does not create energy, it merely transforms it. Energy exists whether or not life exists to prattle about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Yes, sort of, again going back to the original question (which I very poorly phrased); would it be wrong/improper to consider life a form of energy? Yes. Life is a complex system of chemical processes capable of replicating themselves. There's no "inner spark" that sets life apart from other arrangements of matter. It works on the exact same principles as everything else. Energy is simply a property. You can have kinetic energy, heat energy, potential energy, but there is no such thing as "life energy." That's an old idea (vitalism, as mentioned) that is now considered to be roundly discredited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jkemp Posted October 23, 2014 Author Share Posted October 23, 2014 (edited) Delta 1212, that makes sense, thank you. I would also agree; I did not mean to imply "life energy." Acme; you are correct sir or madam it did/does belong in philosophy. The point you make is helpful, thank you. Klaynos, Straight from wiki: In physics, energy is a property of objects, transferable among them via fundamental interactions, which can be converted inform but not created or destroyed. I believe this is exactly what Acme stated... Clearly I need to pay a little more attention in my Physics classes... I had never considered the conservation law of energy to apply to the entire universe... I have a lot to consider and learn about energy. According to conservation of energy, energy can neither be created (produced) nor destroyed by itself. It can only be transformed. The total inflow of energy into a system must equal the total outflow of energy from the system, plus the change in the energy contained within the system. Energy is subject to a strict global conservation law; that is, whenever one measures (or calculates) the total energy of a system of particles whose interactions do not depend explicitly on time, it is found that the total energy of the system always remains constant.[15] Richard Feynman said during a 1961 lecture:[16] There is a fact, or if you wish, a law, governing all natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this law—it is exact so far as we know. The law is called the conservation of energy. It states that there is a certain quantity, which we call energy, that does not change in manifold changes which nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says that there is a numerical quantity which does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is just a strange fact that we can calculate some number and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same. Edited October 23, 2014 by Jkemp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 I know what wiki says, I wanted to know what you thought. But well done for looking out up, given that definition I wonder what you could mean by life being energy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 No, although that is an idea the Big Bang Theory puts forward. Except it isn't. That would be very tough to completely answer, but let's start with heat. Well, living organisms produce heat either deliberately (for example, warm blooded animals) or simply as a "waste product" of their metabolism. But that is just converting one form of energy (chemical energy) into another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jkemp Posted October 23, 2014 Author Share Posted October 23, 2014 Klaynos, I was having a discussion with someone about how life does not create energy. My argument was life does create energy. Although by applying, properly, the conservation law they are correct. However that was not their argument Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Yes, that is exactly what I'm suggesting. Life can/could/should be classified as a type of energy. Delta 1212, that makes sense, thank you. I would also agree; I did not mean to imply "life energy." Can you clarify what you do mean, then? The above two statements appear to be contradictory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now