joigus

That should be your first clue. Usually, the more I look into anything, the less strange and complicated it seems. And that's how it should be. Don't you think?

At the root of it all, I think, is @Boltzmannbrain's remarkable inability --or stubbornness to not recognise-- the limit operation, which in common language is captured by the words "and so on." That is, 1 1, 2 1, 2, 3 and so on. Don't look now BB, but these are the words you're having a problem with. Embrace infinity.

I think they go very much in the direction I was suggesting...

True. But every theory does need to introduce non-observable elements. Examples are the wave function, the gauge, and perhaps the vacuum too. It seems like we're forced to use these 'precursor' concepts that take part in the logical scaffolding of the observable level, but are not exactly on the observable level.

I would say it's not that unusual. Beyond life, but perhaps including the concept of life, we have this one of self-organizing systems. When you have open systems through which a flux of energy is going, you can have order spontaneously appear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization

You beat me to the punch on this one. If I remember correctly, the mitochondrial membrane is mighty selective about what side of the membrane the protons are, which is essential to the workings of ATP synthase, but not so much about where the ATP molecules are. This selective permeability --aided by membrane proteins-- can work wonders in setting mechanisms for 'this kind of energy goes here, that kind of energy goes there' mechanisms. Why those are essential for life I think is very compelling.

It's a subtle matter. There's a lot of discussion on the web. When we introduce the so-called bare vacuum in QFT --which is the vacuum state before it's 'dressed' with virtual particles--, we declare it to be invariant under Lorentz transformations. This is more of a formal requisite than an observable, clearly-established operational verification. It plays a big role, if I remember correctly, in axiomatic quantum field theory --Wightman et al. Funny things happen to the 'dressed' vacuum or 'physical' vacuum when you change the frame of reference. On an accelerating frame, eg, a temperature appears. Is that supposed to mean something measurable? I simply don't know. Somewhere else on these forums @Markus Hanke --one of the local experts-- has expressed concerns about what all of this means, with which I very much concur. My personal opinion is that we should have an appretiation of aspects like these, not necessarily in the sense that they mean something about the world, but in the sense that they mean something about limitations, clues, etc, concerning the status of the theory concerning the world. How do you measure anything about the vacuum in a laboratory?

IMO, yes. Keeping some approximately fixed --or stable, or slowly-varying conditions-- anywhere somehow amounts to setting loci of free energy, or available energy, which in turn amounts to resisting entropy. In my mind, that makes a lot of sense.

I'm sure it's something to do with homeostasis. Homeostasis is essential for life. And again, why? LOL

Yes, thank you. It is. Every time I look at this thread I look without looking, if you know what I mean. a = const. + sin(a) is a transcendental equation. Doh!!

That's a good one. Phospholipids is another key. You need a barrier. I'd say it's the first thing you need before anything happens. Whatever proto-life was --pre DNA-RNA-proteo cycle-- it must happen in some kind of bubble. This view is part of standard wisdom too, if I'm not mistaken.

How can an event be free-falling? You do not Lorentz transform an event, but its coordinates. And you do not Lorentz transform them "towards" anything. You use the language in a way that makes it very difficult to understand what you mean. It is totally wrong though, to assume that Lorentz transformations give rise to vacuum fluctuations, as Lorentz transformations simply represent changes in the point of view. There are subtle questions related to whether the physical vacuum --which has to do with quantum fluctuations-- is invariant under Lorentz transformations, but that's a completely different matter, and doesn't sound it's what you have in mind.

Genady is right. It's not a transcendental equation. I made a mistake. Sorry. Somehow I thought I saw an "a" in the first term, which wasn't there.

This is a transcendental equation. You cannot solve but by means of approximate methods, like iterations that are known to converge to a solution, etc.

It wasn't much of a problem for Hermann Weyl: Raum, Zeit, Materie Space, time, matter I'm starting to suspect the problematic word to many people is not "what", nor is it "physics" It's probably "is." What is "is"?

The gift that keeps on giving.

HUP is part of the foundations of QM, and a very important one. But you cannot get all the richness of results of QM from HUP alone. It's like saying that all of Euclidean geometry can be obtained from the pythagorean theorem, or all of art from mastering perspective.

It doesn't. Laser is based on photons being bosons rather than fermions, transistors have to do with non-linear response (non-Ohmic circuit behaviour), internet and computers could have been developed if the world were classical, AFAIK. It plays a part in Zenner diodes and the like --tunnel effect-- AFAIR, but not singlehandedly, let's say. HUP does not "explain" these things AFAIK. Who told you that?

Make Homo sapiens great again?

https://www.genecards.org/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/guide/human/ ...

Huh... I wasn't making a point. It was a simple question. What is a waveform? Is it a wave function? Is it the equivalence class of all gauge-equivalent wave functions? Is it the modulus square? I'm not familiar with the concept.

BTW, what is a waveform?

It's been a long time since I first understood the difference between being able to explain something, and being able to give a name to something. Eg, is what you're saying now subject to dialetheism? That is, can I believe, or trust, or take for granted what you're saying now, and not believe, not trust, not take for granted anything you're saying now, both at the same time? Is dialetheism itself true and not true? Can it be applied to itself? In the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby, I foresee all kinds of unforeseen problems...

Real excludes "non-real". Therefore it excludes "real and non-real". Unless you're speaking from a different kind of logic. Fuzzy logic, etc. 1) Identity (A is A) 2) Non-contradiction (A is not the neg. of A) 3) Excluded middle (B always is either A, else neg. of A) As to entanglement, etc, I concur with @MigL and @Genady. It certainly doesn't multiply information. If anything, it "compresses" it, whatever that would mean. What it does, perhaps, is bring a brand new kind of entropy to the game: Entanglement entropy => more ways in which we can be ignorant.

Doesn't the question, "Why are there so many insect/small arthropod species?" have a heavy bearing on the OP question? In different patches of ground in Hawaii there are different species of Drosophila alone. 416 only i Hawaii, and only in this genus. For an insect --or any other small arthropod-- a patch of forest, or a particular layer of habitability could be in the range of meters/centimeters, etc. Bacteria --prokaryotes in general-- are pre-sex, so... What is a species, YKWIM? Eg, are two bacteria with different plasmids the same species, and therefore expected to be subject to comparable mathematical constrictions?