ajb

Generally, ideas that relate quantum mechanics to consciousness are considered pseudoscience. Wolf's work is considered no different and related to 'quantum New Age spirituality'.

Right now there is no evidence. We know that the building blocks of life are found throughout the galaxay and Universe. We have found planets that sit in the 'Goldilocks zone' of their respective systems. We know that there is lots of room in our galaxy for life - let alone the Unievrse. The best one can do right now is try to put some numbers to what we observe to get some estimates on various probabilities. The Drake equation is one way of trying to put some kind of numbers to the question of how many extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy that we maybe able to detect via their communications. The bounds given by the Drake equation do not say anything about life that is not advanced.

You might be interested in the Drake equation - though we are not sure how useful it is as some of the parameters are pretty much just guessed.

Has anyone actually claimed this? Or have they said something like tighter gun control will reduce the accessibility of leathal weapons to people who have mental ills? Also note that this is by far the worse crime of this kind in Japan for decades. So, if you are asking if tighter gun laws will stop all mass killing, then the answer is no. People will find illegal guns or use other weapons. However, the rate of these crimes is lowered by tighter gun control in general. Even the UK has some gun crimes and shootings - but the few we get make headlines.

People do deal with what we call extended phase spaces. As you know, space and momentum are canonical conjugates and you can also view time and energy in that way. So people develop a formalism where the phase space is (x,t, p E). This has a canonical symplectic structure and so I guess you can think about canonical transformations here. I have not looked at this properly for a while.

The first cell was 'created' in the Universe by natural processes - better so say evolved. It is thought that the emerged something like 3.8 billion years ago. It was a big step in the evolution of life on Earth.

I asked about this before... anyway you have not defined `creative power' at all. It is just a loose term. You need to show us an equation that we can apply to different things and say that X has more creative power then Y. Otherwise we cannot really make scientific sence of the word.

There is an introduce yourself thread - http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/75313-the-official-introduce-yourself-thread/ Otherwise, trying to bring your qualifications into the discussion is usually rather off topic and not helpful.

Space and energy are not directly related. Time and energy are. Basically, if the physics is time translationally invariant then energy is conserved.

No... Have a think about the weak equivalence principal and electric charge.

The goal posts have been moved some what... i) Abiogenesis is another topic. ii) ID is really the claim that neo-Darwinian 'undirected' evolution is not enough to understand how complex organisms evolved. In relation to ID the basic idea is that something or some one is guiding evolution. This is not the same thing as the question of how life first came about in the Universe - or just here on Earth.

This might not be so easy for evolution ... for one the pressures of natural selection may come from other organisms - think about the predator prey arms race. Secondly, some of the mutations in the DNA that drive 'genetric drift' can come from viruses. Anyway, ID is not a scientific theory. There are no claims of any theory of ID that can be tested. It is just not science.

So, because we invented mobile phones, God must have invented us? Is that your argument?

I am not sure that 1 is at all well posed. How do you define carefully creative power? However you do this we see evolution in action - so there is enough creative power. 2 also depends on your definitions. 3 again depends on your definition - and if the answer is yes, then maybe you have the wrong definition. The ID comes into really by the questions you have posed and simply answering then by -- you guessed it -- God did it.

Basically - God did it.

If something is designed, then who or what designed it? The answer to that question is the key link with religion - but not nessisarily Christianity.

You need to work on your English... anyway thanks for providing some links. Still your claim about psi and so on being 'accepted in is mainstream science' quite wrong. Also, we should not try to push this too much off topic. Life after death and evidence thereof is the topic.

So... thats a no to my question. Thanks.

I am not sure what you mean by this. The problem is that there are no inertial frames for which a photon can be considered at rest. You need to be careful here. What do you mean by backwards? Backwards in time? When switching between inertial frames.

If tachyons are realised in nature, then it is possible to find a reference frames for which the tachyons move backwards in time. Thus it would be possible to send messages back in time - this violates causality. Unless maybe you can find some reason why one cannot actually uses tachyons to send information.

Tachyons is what you are looking for - but they would violate causality as we know it.

Under some mind assumptions it is known that a static Universe is very very unstable. It would require perfect balance and any small changes would result in a collapse. This even led Einstein to propose his cosmological constant to provide this balance - but it does not really solve give a static Universe and it is still unstable. So, we have to think about an expanding or contracting Universe... and then we have the evidcnce for an expansion.

Really? So, you can point to lots of papers in mainstream journals that point to 'most of mainstream science' going along with EPS and PSI?

I don't know any, but the kind of project you are talking about is not really in my field. This sounds like another topic. Start a new thread if you want.

Make me understand what? I do not think your project or paper (not sure which now) is in my field - so I cannot really offer much real advice, other than maybe some general advice. Sending something like a proposal for a PhD project is nothing at all like sending a paper to Nature!