foodchain

Right but any single measurement in time regardless of sequence cant ever be free from having to deal with both uncertainty and superposition correct? So say you make a measurement of say some physical observable, making a measurement, ever, currently has to satisfy uncertainty and superposition correct? So basically I just wonder if uncertainty exists in the quantum system because that system experiences superposition, why else does it exist if not for that? I know this boils down to math ultimately but the math in physics has to model reality or pass such a test right? So how much of QM in regards to its physical proof should I view as being nothing more then current mathematical description? Does it not say anything direct about the nature of nature?

I get lost on this second paragraph. Do you mean by history really phylogeny? It would seem if biology could be reduced at all to one single field with the best possible ability to retain biology as a field of science it would be biological evolution. This is what I don’t understand, plus really looking at evolution or the idea that life really goes extinct more then it thrives, or at least in time a majority of life that has existed on earth in some particular form such as a specie has gone extinct. So really how would you even logical equate that past objective understanding really? So I do not see even how to start thinking about if we are or not are smarter then natural selection. As far as I know the only way you could tell would be to attempt such as see if it could remain fit in time regardless of change in any form. I don’t think we can guarantee the future globally down to each individual specie, so really all I could desire from GM is work towards ending human disease really, I don’t really even think I would enjoy its scope of influence including the endangered species list or conservation. Overall if you cant remove natural selection massive scale GM would entail at least to me that humanity always would have to know what its doing and where its going with that. I just don’t see us fit to do such really, currently at least.

Saying guns will protect us is not really all that true. Personally in such a situation I would rather be in the tank, if per say you really think that situation would happen. I doubt the U.S military would go to war with the America public at large. Another thing is that guns don’t kill people, bullets do, along with people using them. That being said seeing is how we don’t understand the ever present reality of violence, or fear or being human I don’t see how having a gun rich culture of humans beings as being something overtly successful in the long run, just imagine if some person shot Einstein on a robbery for instance, difficult it is to equate these things. The well over ten thousand and up to twenty thousand murders per year via firearm is a bad thing I would think, along with the ridiculous amount of crime in general committed with such. The idea of making the gun more paramount in everything American is sick to think about. I don’t want public school to be a military checkpoint, and I also could care less about making our deaths via handgun rate jump up into the hundreds of thousands. Even with the death penalty it seems like always someone is ready to be executed, how will gun saturation fix ending crime or crime with guns? First of all you would have to know the future and then commit the crime of acting first, with your gun or whatever. I also think logic or some objective understanding of guns hardly exists even politically. I think the constitution also makes law against guns pretty much a no go, even if by gun you were talking about some musket type rifle to use against say the British for instance.

How do you factor in some individuals life history to a equation? I don’t understand how simple facets even of human life can really be rated objectively with math to any great success. It the end of it you have a count which is nice. What if you make a two variable data object for instance though and tie it onto the base count of who did and who did not get pregnant using what program, if some correlation is found does that mean its not a black and white issue easily digested as such? Policy of any kind typically has any bearing on anything political, unless you count political science or economics. Science is relevant to who or whom collectively wants really, and I doubt that person is surrounded by a group of phd physicists or geologists or whatever at all times. IN fact the dying off of polar bears because of the idea that all the ice is melting was an issue governments scientists had to use rules with in order to talk about even, talk about even scientific individuals getting manipulated huh?

IF the total universe for whatever that is collectively was at zero point energy hypothetically speaking what would gravity look like?

I think a better question is weather or not we can grasp our behavior as being the prime source or NS as something that we could even control in time. I think using the reality of time alone is enough, it may not sound to qualify but to honestly view the aspects of this with honesty that it would be wise to point out that being NS means you have to understand what humans will do constantly then for say forever. I mean when we have turned even the autotroph level of microbes in some trophic system into being our version of NS don’t you think it would require constant care forever? Anyways human life of that magnitude already is a global variable in regards to NS with issues like pollution alone. This has not worked out very well, and giving how treatment of this issue I could hardly imagine how NS would be treated in the form of GM by us giving such an environment. I truly think the test to pass my standard for allowing GM would entail a society(prolly unified global) that does not need it in any way already. Such as already possessing enough understanding to avoid things like massive extinction via greenhouse gases and what not.

Can gravity or magnetism correspond somehow to zero point energy?

For any math whiz types please help. Say I wanted to make a math model, not for anything in particular. In this model I wanted something that could describe any particular value which itself is defined by probabilistic values attached just below such or values. I wanted for those values to be required to be treated as units and also satisfy being able to be represented as say geometrical units or parts of a whole. Say I also wanted to add on a chunk to the equation that worked the value with the attributes so it had to display relationships if I were to add in more the one major variable to be defined, it had to do this by making the geometrical values to the sub values of each major variable entangle with each other. I would like this particular aspect to be scaleable, such as from the smallest representational dimension to the largest that can be produced. I was thinking that maybe I could use fractals, and the smallest fractals would be those with the fewest individual connections yet retaining say an atomic or coherent whole status, something akin to an element. Then a higher or “emergent” aspect would be say a compound of these elements arising as say a certain statistical bulk or a somewhat uniform phenomena also “emergent” from the lower pieces and so on. I would want the part of the equation that worked such relationships to look at such from that kind of a perspective. I would then want the last part of such an equation that would work for patterns in the geometry for emergent patterns in transformation, say if the equation was cyclic for the flow of water through a region for instance, if you had such variables submitted as sub values again for the main variables. Such as instead of looking for relationships in a geometric point of view for say a static snap shot like representation, it would reveal such in terms of running the probabilities as a range of variance. The idea is that they main variables would feed into the other two parts of the equation to have form via the geometry aspect select out of probability, and have such be able to follow transformations of such form via selection criteria. I would hope that the selection criteria could occur if the units had to relate, which I would want to specify for the ability to entangle occur. What kind of math should I look to use if I wanted to try and make such a model in the fist place?

How active is the spliceosome in generating phenotypes? I don’t know if the question pertains really to cellular differentiation to variance in protein expression, but more or less is the spliceosome has any direct impact on appearance of traits and or phenotypes. Simply put if it did could the spliceosome be used to study phylogeny in an ecological sense using epigenetics? Last question which I have to add in case someone knows it, does the spliceosome play any direct role when populations of locusts form?

Economics is a mortal thing to nations as easy to see. The U.S managed to with the cold war without going to war, mostly due to the economy of the U.S.S.R, or former that is. So why Iraq over Iran if the war truly is about defeating terrorism and emplacing democracy? Iran to me seems a far more realistic threat in regards to the realities of terrorism then Iraq ever did, Saddam was a nutcase, but for however he treated his people, which is probably as bad as the current war is effecting such, then whatever that guys name is in Iran is a bit worse. Iran is closer to nuclear weapon technology then Iraq, has more connections to terrorist organizations, preaches genocide/mass murder and global dominance by really a single nation? Personally even if the U.S is the evil empire I would still rather suffer such rule then anything by Iran, ever. Also you can look at say some nations in Africa and wonder how diversion of resources from the Iraq war could have realistically stopped genocides from occurring and other acts of ethnic cleansing we define people like Hitler for, yet nothing done really. I would say that’s because of economics. I think Clinton was hated really for the use of U.S forces in say Bosnia simply because the U.S really did not win anything there of value save ending or aiding in the end really of such things, then of course during the black hawk down incident the last thing they will tell you is all the republicans were talking about pointless wars killing our service people, yet there really is no difference to modern political thought from the right that preaches the need to establish such long term in our history with the Iraq war, go figure. So in short yes, oil is power because it simply just is. It offers a more tangible reward for a conflict, rather then having this war in Iran, which was labeled by Dubya as an axis of evil nation btw, you can have it in far more oil rich nation. I also sadly wonder if its because they thought it would be easier to change the people of Iraq then the people of Iran, but to be honest I don’t find much acts of caring going on with Iraq, save for prolonged deleterious warfare with no end in site.

Physical laws that govern the universe should transcend human scientific classifications. Maybe a microbe is not a planet, but obviously a star going nova can interfere with both. So to me, I am looking for the basement. Giving what I understand about reality via science, I cannot view such in a context lacking any form of an environment, or a bunch of things interacting with each other I guess would be a more barren description. Simply put I advocate the trusting math as some mechanism that will grant all knowing power to be viewed with serious doubt, really I don’t think you could do that, for you would have to be doing some serious cloning to say see the future for instance, if time exists in such a form anyways as in having a future. So my view of QM basically has it as the base reality of stuff, or the universe. So really I like the MWI, but I think that really MWI might be the future for the universe, constantly. Such as say you have one total universe, for sack of thought, why cant in time such come to represent something like MWI with just one world? So I think of things in the universe and wonder how could QM produce such, would that offer any understanding to how it works, what would QM reveal about biological function, such as how enzymes might function, to really its possible role in the origin of life giving QMs use in chemistry. Decoherence I like because of this. I think it would be neat to say study pointers in relation to application on reaction mechanisms. More so in context with environment. Sadly this really would probably require a quantum computer to have occur really at any decent pace. With that said what is a quantum computer exactly? They have to control so much to get something like a bit to even exist, but when it is up and running what will it be? Could you view something like a quantum computer to be a controlled environment, and have that view actually capable of representing what a quantum computer is?

From the octet rule point if you want its because the total electrons between the atoms is equal to 8, and in bonding such get shared in a way to satisfy the octet rule in which each atom has eight electrons via combination of the individual four atoms when the atoms were separate. This means when you use this rule you look to try and bond individual atoms that can equal to each atom in the compound having eight electrons. It gets more complicated and such is a generalization somewhat. I mean you would not say the atom became a cation to satisfy the octet rule, and other tools have been made I think.

What kind of business models or practices do you think would favor environmentally safe behavior from a capitalist viewpoint? Currently I view environmentally safe products of business at a disadvantage simply from higher costs and less availability overall. I don’t see how the current model of our economy as I see it changing from this. I mean the SUV only stated to diminish in sales because of fuel prices, but its not extinct. How can a “free” economy sustain any lasting or positive changes to be environmentally sound globally and locally? I raise this question because I think ultimately past making huge leaps in alternative fuels that can be expended without bound or impact are very small if they even exist and would require change on every level down to individual households overall, such as some perfect solar array system like generator that could actually stand in for the prime fuel source for national or global communities, not happening tomorrow. This I could only think comes to mean efficiency has to become more and more of a concern as population grows. So how can a free market system actually exist if it has to operate on ever more burdening efficiency rules for instance? How would this relate to employment and type of work? I see this question as nothing close to mentioned to often by anything really. Simply put what would a environmentally sound economy even look like. I don’t think it has to be a biodome type event, but the environment does exist in real life.

If you don’t mind my shameless speculation plug its not really so much about the evolution of life per say, but its more in regards to just the origin. I think if you can say apply QM in terms of things like decoherence, that such could be used in conjunction possibly to understand origin of life, or that such understanding might be required more heavily to understand how such occurred. Pre-biotic chemistry gave rise to life, in a sense with the environment, so how did this happen? I just don’t see how such a question could be solved without QM, and I think from what I understand that facets of such like decoherence, and again einselection could be useful. The only other ideas I get is that for vision to work, adaptation must be able to work with QM in some regard, that any maybe facets of mutation and related ideas like them occurring or the molecular clock might be do in some small part to variation in however the chemical aspect might be working in a cell or organism, or that its a fault or mutation by reality of how all the molecules are interacting at a QM level. *I got the mutation via QM concept from reading about the no-cloning theorem.

I got interested in QM because I got this idea that it could be what is required to understand how life originated. This is why I am so interested in decoherence and einselection for possible aid in chemistry things. To be honest I did not know what QM was really say less then a year ago, I mean I knew it existed just did not know anything about it. Also if I get a part of your post is that the why of uncertainty and superposition or entanglement is really not taking much past being math? Or that to answer my threads main question is in the realm of interpretation overall?

Make a disc or something of solid helium and try to do stuff with it like drop it.

I think with terrorism in a modern sense such issues dwell from mainly poverty, prior history even in a short sense also being big, really big, and of course ignorance or lack of any education/worldview that is not particularly lacking in many places, extinct for the most part in others. This education also can be purely a moral one from combinations of various social influences like religion. So for instance in an Iraqi prison a site you might read about could be recruitment of anti-coalition fighters that cannot read or right and basically only know a warped fashion of some religion and bitter hard poverty. Not to say that is what makes a terrorist, but in places like Afghanistan the culture was completely harmed in very deleterious ways by war in reference to the nation being more like a nation like Kuwait for instance. This is only a part of the puzzle though as with Iran and Saudi Arabia you can find plenty of reasons for wanting to label something terrorist in a modern sense, those nations not being anything like modern Afghanistan. This includes rhetoric of mass murder/genocide and various related incidents of extreme violence basically prompted by the same. So in short terrorism would be an immensely large cultural creature, and why its exists I cant think of any other reason really save for religion, not that religion has any sort of a violent history or anything.

I just don’t understand where uncertainty, superposition and measurement happen to differentiate. I don’t buy the observer effect for the simple concept that we are in relation to the quantum world more of the same that makes up the universe right? I mean i know that we are different then say some slab of concrete but none the less we would still just be environment to any quantum system right? if some quantum system is always in a superposition of possible states to some extent, and this is universal for say anything quantum, then my big leap is to conclude that quantum systems are in a perpetual state of measurement, with variance. So to me I don’t see uncertainty being an observer effect unless you mean that from a math point, such as its because of the math used the uncertainty principal exists, or for superposition or what not. If the uncertainty principal is a fundamental constant of nature in regards to nature on that scale, why does it differ from superposition if a state has to be described by such in conjunction with the uncertainty principal? I mean if experiments can be set up to aid in controlling superposition or its effects such as with a quantum computer, does this not then apply always to the uncertainty principal also being effected by such? I know uncertainty principal applies to measurement or observation, and all of such constantly, but why or how else could this exist outside of superposition which to me basically denotes the nature of how quantum things behave? Such as a photon has possible polarizations right, that can be changed according to say interference, will this would be a constant in regards to quantum interference regardless of source correct? So then I would think that interference or measurement cannot ever go past uncertainty or remove superposition as a constant of something quantum.

That’s the point it becomes fuzzy. The constitution for one does not include anything about the person making the law because they enjoy from a religious perspective yet they don’t have to word that into the law in any form even if you know the law is stemming from a religious desire ultimately. Another part, and this is crucial, is the word institution. If you can make law in regards to religious institution what does that mean? I think a good example is marriage and ID support or creation support as a science for public school curriculum. Obviously Americans at large identify with marriage being a religious institution, or part of one. Even if the history of monogamy is not strictly of any one particular faith historically overall into a modern sense of things, why should there be law for or against it, unless people just don’t care man. Then you have the idea of teaching what is surely religion in public schools, how can that be lawful? IS religion regardless of faith a religious institution, how can you make law for or against it, or really law that has anything to do with it?

Okay, thank you.

The separation of church and state is noted in plain text and is easy to read. To sum it up, law, which our government is a system of and enforcer of such, can make no law in support or against religious institution or institutions if you want. Its global basically then as a variable if I can word such in such a way. No law to be made in support or against religion, means no law that deals with religion. so marriage is I would say in breech of such, but hey, who cares if the dubya gives tax money lawfully to religious groups and even makes statements surrounding war about direction from above, its only governmental law and religion.

okay, last attempt. theoretical quantum computer. Humans want to take advantage of superposition to do calculations, because it can happen all at once or whatever. when a measurement is to be made for useful data, we are making a measurement on the state of the system, or some state at any rate, but to make the measurement ultimately brings up the uncertainty principal. now you say because its a wave, i thought the wavefunction was to describe superposition?

Actually the concept of time can be related to lots of things, like the sun for instance. Also if you use a tape stick to measure something you are already using a logical system, much like what is being described to you, same goes for the clock. Plus measurement can be a lot of things, like the length of some royal persons arm span. Second you have to take all the variables into account, put them in the equations with the right units and then do the math to get the answer. Also the car thing would never be accurate enough i would think to measure such a situation along with a time and a yardstick, are you sure that both cars stayed exact for instance, such as one did not start a billionth of a second before the other one, could your timer tell you that? I think the basic idea here is that reference frames are relative? and that its the speed of light that allows your to discern ultimately other variables, not sure though so someone correct me if I am wrong please. here is a question for you, if two people witnessed a lighting strike one was to the left of it at 100 meters, and the other was to the right at 120 meters, who saw the lighting strike first and why?

Its not that we can replace NS in terms of issues like immunity from death and the universe or what not, not 100% or something and giving us a 100% predictable future. What it can do though is act like NS, such as if you make a trait for instance, something which gives a person photographic memory, for anything and everything. That trait now is part of selection I would think, acting out in the form of any individual with that trait. IF this trait were to lead on average better then others, such as those people find it easier to remember calculations for say a class, or in life in general, then would it not be a jump to conclude that selection is operating on it? So the more you do this to the biosphere, the more GM works with or becomes part of in real time the process of natural selection. So to me proper conduct with GM requires a huge amount of understanding, or else i think we have a equal to if not greater chance to do something horribly wrong, possibly on a global scale, like with global warming. So with an insect, if you make it a better hunter of say some other type of insect, you can change a whole lot I would think, more so in the face of change overall with the planet in general giving its history. The argument that NS is not perfect by any means and that we could do better I think is possible. I do not think how NS works collectively on say the biosphere is outside of human understanding. I also do not think it would be impossible to map this to a molecular level for any giving individual or population. I also do not think we are even close to owning such a model of life yet.

Right and a state I assume is to correspond to a physical observable right, such as position or momentum, but a person or whatever that is performing a measurement I am to understand cannot be 100% accurate as to know exact position or momentum at the same time for a giving quantum thing. Why is this outside of superposition? Is it to say that simply to observe something, or make a measurement of it, on any particular state the ability to discern exactness in regards to the others fail, if its not superposition then what is that that allows a quantum object to escape having both its position and momentum known exactly at the same time? The only other thing I can think off is that when a measurement is made, its really being made on an ensemble then of quantum things? Such as to get a BEC the environment has to be in a certain controlled format, yet even with that is it not uncertainty or superposition that makes absolute zero currently impossible to obtain?