himoura

I have been thinking a lot about the theory of variance lately and have come to a conclusion on this. It is easy to prove this theory beyond reasonable doubt and the funny part is that i do not even need complicated mathematics to do it. the answer is simple. the Earths ability to support life is devoid of variance. i do not have to bother trying to calculate something that doesn't factor. for variance to not factor at all that would mean everything is pre-determined and Quantum Mechanics does not truly exist which is impossible. for evidence i cite the "faint young sun problem". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun If you scroll down near the bottom you will see a small article as titled above. the geological record of the earth clearly shows us that since life first began to crop up (4.5 billion yrs ago), the Earth has managed to maintain the perfect climate to support it. 3.8 - 2.5 billion years ago the sun would have been to faint at 75% to provide the heat necessary to keep liquid solid on the surface. I think that scientists trying to explain this dilemma with green house effect is ridiculous. not only is it impossible to validate but its not scientific at all. even if this explanation were correct there would have to be periods of temperature drops as the atmosphere adjusts. for it to remain so consistent is just not possible. the sheer number of scenarios we are all just chalking up to luck to explain the earths track record has quickly run outside of reason. the fact that the Earth somehow was able to maintain such a consistent global temperature throughout this period is really all the proof i need. its just not possible. It is my conclusion that the theory of variance will never be dis-proven, at least not for a very long time if at all.

i accept the big bang and think its the correct model. Inflation theory however still has some major hurdles to overcome despite its wide acceptance. (from wikipedia criticisms of inflation theory) In order to work, and as pointed out by Roger Penrose from 1986 on, inflation requires extremely specific initial conditions of its own, so that the problem (or pseudoproblem) of initial conditions is not solved: “There is something fundamentally misconceived about trying to explain the uniformity of the early universe as resulting from a thermalization process. […] For, if the thermalization is actually doing anything […] then it represents a definite increasing of the entropy. Thus, the universe would have been even more special before the thermalization than after.”[93] The problem of specific or “fine-tuned” initial conditions would not have been solved; it would have got worse. A recurrent criticism of inflation is that the invoked inflaton field does not correspond to any known physical field, and that its potential energy curve seems to be an ad hoc contrivance to accommodate almost any data we could get. It is significant that Paul J. Steinhardt, one of the founding fathers of inflationary cosmology, has recently become one of its sharpest critics. He calls ‘bad inflation’ a period of accelerated expansion whose outcome conflicts with observations, and ‘good inflation’ one compatible with them: “Not only is bad inflation more likely than good inflation, but no inflation is more likely than either. … Roger Penrose considered all the possible configurations of the inflation and gravitational fields. Some of these configurations lead to inflation … Other configurations lead to a uniform, flat universe directly –without inflation. Obtaining a flat universe is unlikely overall. Penrose’s shocking conclusion, though, was that obtaining a flat universe without inflation is much more likely than with inflation –by a factor of 10 to the googol (10 to the 100) power!”[94]

Imagine your life as a river. The river will always travel in the same general direction. It will always begin in the same place, and it will always end in the same general location. This is how fate may be represented. Now imagine the journey of all of the water that flows in that same river. Imagine all the bends and turns and consequences for every nuance that exists as a result of the formation of this river. The starting and ending points remain the same yet the journey is what makes the river distinct; even it's very condition as it defines itself utterly throughout the course of it's formation. This is how free will may be represented. How you start or even the limits of your journey may be a matter of fate or pre-determination. Yet the choices you make along the way form the overall appearance of the way your river distinguishes itself. Will it be a raging current, strong and hewing itself a path through even the greatest of stone or rock impediment? Or will it become a frail, dying stream, lackluster and lifeless as it reaches its bitter end? ~Himoura

i recant part of what i said about the meteor impact. if you are suggesting that messenger RNA could have been carried to this planet via a meteor impact than i have no problem with that. if your not than my analogy is not horrible at all. the irony here is that if you are suggesting that RNA was carried to this planet via an impact than that constitutes panspermia which is not accepted in any scientific circles. Crick believed in this and im getting to the point where i can see it as being the only possibility myself. look the theory of variance is not about the processes of life itself on a biological level. i have tried repeatedly to drive this point to no avail. the theory of variance is about astrophysics and the consistency with which the earth has been able to sustain life for 4.5 billion years. it has nothing to do with evolution or the biological processes that formed life outside of providing an environment in which life can thrive. and your exactly right about me saying that life cannot exist as a chance and that i have to prove it. exactly... i am working on that now and it isnt going to happen in a day. i am sorry i do not have more time to devote to this but between work, finishing my first album, writing two books, fixing my bmw myself and my personal life i am burning the candle at both ends. i will come back when i have worked out the details on how to prove this using QM. i am not trying to end the discussion at all. i really appreciate your input greatly and everyone else on this forum.. you guys rock. and you may even disprove this before i get a chance to prove it. thats the point. i do apologize for not acknowledging any credit. i am not kidding when i said i am burning the candle at both ends. i am writing a song write now and my head is a little fuzzy.

ill point out why you are wrong. an impact with the earth will never organize anything into a complex shape or structure or life of any kind. this fundamental flaw in your understanding of physics seems to be extremely prevalent in the scientific community. the notion is ridiculous and unacceptable. throw some tobacco on the ground and a rolling paper along side of it and ask yourself how long before a cigarette forms. it will never happen. i can say the life cannot happen as a result of chance... you however cannot say it did. end of discussion. i already proved this point adequately using Newtonian determinism. @swansont you dont think a planet with an obliquity that "is not" primordial being so consistent as to vary only a degree or two back and forth within a 26 thousand yr period to be rare? surely you jest. @edatharan the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution according to abiogenesis. i agree with that conclusion. origin of life and evolution have nothing to do with each other.

@Dragonstar57 That would be great if we could find their tools. That's the most puzzling part about it all. In most of the really puzzling sites we cannot find any of their tools. Besides especially at sites like Pumapunku the precision that is needed to make most those cuts rivals or exceeds our own technology. That means they needed advanced tools. Where are they?? It's so funny how archaeologists ascribe so much of this to people pulling these massive stone blocks with hundreds of ropes or pushing them with 50 pairs of hands. Or even chiseling precise cuts in stone with copper hammers and rocks. It's a joke man. The reason we know the Romans could pull 300 tons is because they invented the first wench. We found their tools scattered all over the site so we know and can prove what they were capable of. With the megaliths it's just unexplainable. We have no evidence of how they were built. But yet modern day archeologists have put forth "accepted" theories about how these ruins were built and who built them with zero evidence lol. Awesome. And now that we are finding cities that date back to the last ice age why should we believe anything the archeological community puts forth?? it's all crap lol. It's obvious they are just guessing and trying to write their names in the history books man.

I really dig the ancient aliens show. I love the way archeological science is being turned upon it's head and rightly so. They have been lying to us and makin up rediculous theories for years. If the ancient aliens show proves anything its that our understanding of the history if this earth is completely absurd and needs to be rewritten. I do not necessarily agree with the conclusions they come too on the show because they are wildly speculative but there is a wealth of information that is irrefutable that is finally filtering down to the general public. Pyramids being found on the ocean floor all around Japan... Ancient cities off the coast of India dating back to the last ice age... Pumapunku (sp)... all the megaliths all over the world. Lake titticaca... Let's face it... Ancient humans did not build that stuff without help or simply didn't build it at all. That's total garbage. The roman empire showed us what ancient man was capable of moving and it was 300 tons tops. Anything over that is simply unexplainable. And this isn't scientific but I'll say it. I don't think it's aliens that are visiting us. If there is intelligent life in the universe then why can't we hear it? I mean how hard is it to make a point contact diode? Also the space travel problem is huge. I have been saying for years... it's interdimensional beings. They have been living right on top of us all these years. It's the only thing that makes sense. We aren't being visited at all. We share our earth with them already.

Well your last point clearly illustrates why you can't believe anything you see on YouTube. Thanks for the correction. I remained skeptical but my hopes were up I won't lie. To your first point. You need to drill down into those issues. It's not that simple. You should check out rare earth. Those guys aren't hacks at all. They encorporated help from some of the most brilliant minds in the field They explain why obliquity is so important and also why plate tectonics are as well and why they are rare. I posted large excerpts myself but I don't think I should be posting other people's work too much. Go read! lol I need to start to accumulate data now. This is the tough part. I wanna get back to essay and realitycheck and bignose too. Gotta clear a little work out first!!

It's not that video poker is real poker or not. That point is irrelevant. One is subject to odds flatly and the other (skilled) player is not. Your arguements on Newtonian determinism are inspiring. I am drilling down into this very intensely. You are right to suggest that I cannot say something shouldn't (which I haven't so far) have happened. That would be incorrect as it implies it is possible to begin with and as you correctly stated all outcomes equal one. I can however say it couldn't have happened. Here is a decent analogy (the more complicated this gets it's harder to come up with good analogies so please bear with me). I have never gotten a royal flush. I have played for 7 years. I have logged way more then 40k hours but for whatever reason it never happened. If i never pick up another deck of cards it will never happen. That doesnt mean it couldnt have happened or shouldn't have it just means it didnt. Therefore you cannot say that simply because the earth exists it happened by chance because all outcomes equal one. The fact is that you dont know if it's truly possible to begin with, but even if it were possible you still couldn't say it did because there is no way for you to be sure. Using quantum mechanics i think i can work out wether its possible or not but this remains to be seen. Unfortunately we must wait for astrophysics to catch up to our argument and work out the specifics of the lotteries. Only time will tell. It seems we are at somewhat of an impass. There is definitely arguements as to the tilt. It's called obliquity and it is explained in great detail on p. 223 of rare earth. Obliquity is what causes us to have seasons. Not at all suggesting rare earth is the authority on astrophysics I just havent had time to research more sources. Also look into plate tectonics... this is extremely unusual. They act as a thermostat for the planet. Without them our oceans would literally boil or freeze if I read correctly. @realitycheck and essay please forgive me I have a lot going on and I definitely want to get back to u guys. Very good stuff I just need more time to research so I can give u honest info! @paxton your argument seems like it's violating HPU... its not just a 6 figure combination and the timeline is finite. Besides how much time do we need for a process we don't understand to take hold? It's not very scientific to guess or assume. This isn't very scientific at all but I'm going to say it anyway. Has anyone heard of ormes? Can anyone verify if this is true? I am not an expert on metallurgy or geology so i cannot say. If it is true that there are stealth particles that our technology cannot see because they exist out of phase or in phase until heated to a certain degree then maybe this could help explain. There could be whole processes of evolution that are going on right under our noses and we simply can't see them due to technological constraints. I listened to a 17 vid lecture about ormes that blew me away. Not saying it's true at all. I need confirmation. If anyone knows anything about this please post links as it has become relevant.

no i am not at all. yes you are correct in your reasoning but your conclusion is wrong contextually because it is being applied incorrectly. you are correct in that its not unusual to win a lottery, this is a brilliant observation. however, if one person keeps winning lotteries than yes that is extremely unusual. the reason the earth is rare is because its winning tons of lotteries not just one. the earth's orbit, axial tilt, moon etc. would represent a multitude of lotteries not just one and there would be many more. if you look at the poker analogy it makes perfect sense. one guy (playing against a poker machine) doesnt win almost all his hands, but those hands are indeed being won all over the world (as moontanman already pointed out to his credit). heck one very skilled player up against a donkey may lose most his hands due to variance for a short amount of time. the only defense against this is to not play and wait for their heater to end. you have to be really careful with determinism and probability because you can reason yourself into saying the probablility of any event is 1:1. which isnt true at all. i know that's not what you are trying to say... but if you are using this as an argument against me you kinda are. this is an extremely engaging debate and i give a lot of credit to all involved. i definitely came to the right place. even if i end up being proved wrong i will gladly sacrifice my pride for the truth. pride earns me nothing... truth on the other hand is enlightenment.

This is a very clever argument. I think it's flawed though because it's like choosing a lottery winner and saying because that person won the odds of winning were one. That's not really accurate of what happened. The odds weren't 1 before they won. The odds became 1 after they one. To imply the odds were 1 Before implies pre destination or fate. Your basically saying that event was pre-determined. The Heisenburg principle of uncertainty plainly states you cannot predict the outcome of a quantum event. It also shows that nature is fundamentally unpredictable on a microscopic scale. I hope I am getting this stuff right. Idk. I am still researching randomness in quantum mechanics and chaos theory and principles of uncertainty. This gets really deep. I am really impressed now with some of these posts. I feel like we are all using our brains. @Jon your right John it is irrelevant and no one should care. I was only using it as an example to show how large the numbers can get. I believe life evolved through natural processes. I apologize for any mischaracterization I made regarding your post. Just remember though. People here haven't exactly been super nice to me. I got pulled into that conversation unwillingly. I'm not trying to strawman anything John I am trying to create a conundrum like Olber's paradox. A puzzle we can all collectively solve that helps us discover the natural process or processes that determine the specifics of our solar system. I didn't really wanna spell it out because then it gets solved much quicker. It's all good though. @realitycheck very good post and informative. I agree with what your saying. There are some theories that try to explain where nucleic acids come from but don't do such a great job. The ones your posting seem a lot better then what I was seeing. I will check into that. @essay very good stuff. You and Swanson are stretching my brain lol. Let me read into what you are saying before I comment. You could totally be right I am not sure. About variance. It's just a poker term. I am not sure how it would apply to mathematics directly. I will try to get that answer for you. Thank you fir helping me to get more specific.

i like this post. you are simply hitting me with a counter arguement. thank you. i am reading anthropic principle now. very interesting. it does have a lot of criticism though... let me drill down further and check it out. i am not sure about that equation. do you have a way to prove that there is a protein chain short enough to merit those odds? a chain of 200 is rather small and the odds of that combination is mind numbing. even if you had a chain half the size the odds would still be exponential. is it possible the cells you are referring to do not possess mitochondrial DNA? and therefore dont need protein but never become complex either? i could be wrong... it is late and my eyes hurt from research. i will look into this more. unfortunately this is only the beginning of the origin of life conundrum. i hate to do this because it really does feel like i am moving the goal post but if you didnt know then you need to hear it. there is a major problem with abiogenesis. nucleic acid tape. the messenger RNA. where does it come from? no one knows... some theories have been proposed but nothing widely accepted. read the end of the first paragraph on wiki abiogenesis... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis what is the nucleic acid tape? it is literally an instruction set for how to sequence proteins. yes an instruction set as in it literally contains information. a biological information system. i am a network engineer so i have studied information theory. i study coded language and how it is routed through autonomous systems. according to information theory information cannot be classified as either matter or energy. it exists independent of its carrier. so where do the instructions to sequence the chains come from? we just dont know. we know that once the process gets going evolution causes the information to evolve somehow. it has to because one information system has never been shown to change into a different information system. we just dont know how it got started because we have no idea how nucleic acid originates or where it gets its information from. really though this has nothing to do with the theory of variance. i am delighted to speak on it but it really only came up through a weird twist of the conversation.

mooey i have nothing against you at all its just that a lot of my posts you are reading incorrectly. even the post where you warned me the third time i complimented the guy 3 times in that quote ironically enough. another example is when you quoted me about the earth being one solitary body. i wasnt saying there is only one "earth" in the whole universe. heck there could be tons i dont know. my point is that "our" earth is only subject to one set of odds. its the same reason you dont see one guy winning all the time. all those wins dont happen in one place. i am not even of the opinion the earth is super rare either. my mission here is to create a conundrum. i personally think there are a lot of worlds... that there has to be but thats just my personal opinion and not very scientific i suppose. and rare earth theory has less criticisms then inflation if you wanna compare. the poker analogy is sound there is nothing wrong with it. moontanman was exactly right when he said that it was a great analogy.... but he feels i am incorrect. he came up with an extremely clever arguement too to back himself up. eventually he may proove me wrong we will see. as far as swansont point about randomness. this is an extremely confusing arguement and is an area i am currently drilling down on. i have been researching this to make sure i am not speaking incorrectly and also trying to make sure i have my ducks in a row. saying the odds are 1 after you win a lottery is a moot point because millions lost. i admit i didnt understand this comment and mischaracterized his statement myself. i apologize for that. i know you and swansont are smart people your just not taking the time to read what i am writing. this is why you are getting so frustrated with me because you think i am moving the goal post when i am not at all. you are skimming through my posts and not taking it seriously and then trying to rebutt me with a casual retort. and lastly the reason why i didnt take bignose more seriously is because 10^260 is literally beyond human comprehension. 10^11 represents all the stars in our galaxy. 10^80 is estimated to represent all the atoms in all the billions of galaxies out to the edges of the known universe. I asked bignose to go back and read the Crick quote because it is so eloquent i didn't want to butcher it and he still hasnt. he just keeps acting like 10^260 is a small number we can sample and what if something happened 10^245 times every second and stuff like that. i know you guys are smart your just being lazy and not reading man. it can be a little frustrating. please call me out if i am wrong and i am totally cool with that but at least due the due diligence of really reading what i am saying.

"You can have random elements but not a random outcome. (I am using random here to mean "all outcomes are equally likely"). The implication of using "luck" or "chance" is that there are no deterministic processes, and that's false. For one thing, it ignores that after an event has occurred, the probability of that event occurring is 1." "You have proceeded from a false dichotomy that if a process is not completely determined it is completely random." i never meant to suggest any outcome is 100% random and that's why you keep misinterpreting what i am saying. the word random is confusing because it has multiple definitions. you are taking a mathematical truth and perverting it to suggest something it was never meant to suggest. by the context of your definition odds and chance do not exist and the probability of every event is 1:1 which we all know is incorrect otherwise everyone on here would be running out to play the lottery. "If poker were truly random, then we should not expect a subset of players larger than random chance to consistently do well. But we do. There's a nonrandom element that prevents the results from being just luck. There is skill involved." only because you can cheat the odds by tricking your opponent into playing or not playing. this is easily seen by playing poker machines. when you look at a group that plays machines you will not see a subset of players consistently do well... you do not understand the game of poker and so the statement above is patently false in its context. here is some blurbs to back me up from the book "Rare Earth". deterministic laws of motion do not even begin to account for all of the specifics of the earths orbit. some of this is just plain mind boggling. "The Moon plays three pivotal roles that affect the evolution and survival of life on Earth. It causes lunar tides, it stabilizes the tilt of Earth's spin axis, and it slows the Earth's rate of rotation. Of these, the most important is its effect on the angle of tilt of Earth's spin axis relative to the plane of its orbit, which is called "obliquity." Obliquity is the cause of seasonal changes." p.223 "If the Earth's formation could be replayed 100 times, how many times would it have such a large moon? If the great impact had resulted in a retrograde orbit, it would have decayed. It has been suggested that this may have happened for Venus and may explain that planet's slow rotation and lack of any moon. If the great impact had occurred at a later stage in Earth's formation, the higher mass and gravity of the planet would not have allowed enough mass to be ejected to form a large moon. If the impact had occurred earlier, much of the debris would have been lost to space, and the resulting moon would have been too small to stabilize the obliquity of Earth's spin axis. If the giant impact had not occurred at all, the Earth might have retained a much higher inventory of water, carbon, and nitrogen, perhaps leading to a Runaway Greenhouse atmosphere." p.234 "Astronomer Jacques Laskar, who made many of the calculations that led to the surprising discovery of the Moon's importance in maintaining Earth's stable obliquity, summarized the situation as follows: 'These results show that the situation of the Earth is very peculiar. The common status for all the terrestrial planets is to have experienced very large scale chaotic behavior for their obliquity, which, in the case of the Earth and in the absence of the Moon, may have prevented the appearance of evoluted forms of life. . . . [W]e owe our present climate stability to an exceptional event: the presence of the Moon.' p.224 "Doug Lin at the University of California at Santa Cruz has calculated that spiral waves generated in the solar nebula phase can extract energy from a young Jupiter and cause its orbit to spiral inward. In many cases the planet actually hits the star; in others the inward drift stops before collision occurs. The observed giant planets that are very close to stars may be examples of this inward drift. Events such as this can be calamitous for terrestrial planets. When a Jupiter spirals inward, the inner planets precede it and are pushed into the star. If our Jupiter had done this, Earth would have been vaporized long before life-tolerant conditions were ever established on its surface. Lin has suggested that our solar system may have had several Jupiters that actually did spiral into the sun, only to be replaced with a newly formed planet. Perhaps Jupiter is at its "right" distance from the sun only because it was the last one to form and it formed at a time when the solar nebula had weakened to the point where orbital decay ceased to be important." p. 242

Deterministic laws of motion are all that keep earths orbit intact right? Bull crap dude. If Jupiter and Saturn weren't there stabilizing the earths climate would have decayed long ago. Now what are the odds of that?? http://www.mahalo.com/answers/what-role-does-jupiter-play-in-the-orbit-path-of-the-earth