I Would Like to Pose a Question About Science in General.

[Jay Walker]

If electricity is a natural occurrence, and people are natural occurrences, then is the bottle we catch lightning in that is produced by people a natural occurrence as well?

If so, would that make all of our products, technology, and systems that revolve around them also natural occurrences?

I am not suggesting the iPhone occurs in nature, I am considering that everything an iPhone is made up of has been plucked from nature and has been manipulated by natural beings in order to produce things that help us survive and make our lives easier. Similar to a hive of bees that manufacture honeycomb structures in order to produce honey.
People wouldn't argue honey occurs naturally.

The reason I ask is because that thought process leads me to my next question.

If say, the iPhone and everything that consists of materials and concepts, including the method in which it receives service and power came from nature at some point...

Why?

Why would nature provide the possibility to communicate with each other on a beam of light, at the speed of light?
Just to make our lives better?
Just so we can eventually discover the secrets this universe holds and invent a time machine so we can return to the past and right all the wrongs we have been meddling with in the process of these same discoveries.

Seems awfully convenient.

While I have a chance to ask... What would the purpose of a fingerprint be being completely unique amongst billions of others regardless of if alive, dead or not yet born? Two people will never have the same fingerprint. The probability of two people having the same fingerprint, is 1 in 64 billion. Since there has been an estimated 109 - 117 billion people to ever live on earth, 1 in 64 billion may occur every 15 generations assuming every generation has around 4.36 billion people. That means there is a slight chance of identical fingerprints every 375 to 450 years.

What purpose could that system possibly serve in nature?

Katy asks Neil, Why?

Warning: (The above interview is extremely cringe) Viewer Discretion is ever present, so it should at the least be advised.

Yet, if you notice, he doesn't actually answer the question. Maybe, if she would have asked it differently, like "What purpose do fingerprints serve in the natural world? Either way, he doesn't exactly have an answer.

Personally, with all of that said...

Plus...

The fact that our DNA works like 2 sets of binary code, A with T, and C with G, like a more complex version of our own computers.

DNA Seen Through the Eyes of a Coder

and...

There is a theoretical physicist named Dr. S. James Gates that specializes in string theory and supersymmetry discovered what appears to be error codes embedded in the equations of string theory. Who in-fact no one is disagreeing with but are proceeding with business as usual as if he didn't.

S James Gates

What conclusion can we possibly come to?

I don't have a conclusion on this topic. I was just wondering what any might contribute to the conversation. I have heard many thoughts on the probability that we live in a simulation, everything from quantum physics and superpositions, the MWI, Double Slit Experiment, Elon Musk contemplations, and even N. D. Tyson giving us a solid fifty/fifty shot that we are living in a simulation.

I wonder about Carl Jung, and his hypothesis on synchronicity, had he known about some of the discoveries that have been made since his passing.

Maybe, it doesn't really matter, seeing as the coders being as accessible as God itself.

Left only to sit here contemplating the likely of all unlikeliness.



- J.

 

[Darby]

I'm confused. Is the above post your words or are they lifted, without attribution, from some other source? If so, you really should go in and edit the post to give proper credit and a URL where we can look at the original. Anyway...

To answer the questions you need to:

Define what you mean by "natural occurrence."

Define what is meant by, "nature provide the possibility to communicate."

You asked the question in terms of science . To answer the questions you need to define the terms. I know what I would mean by using them but because you posted this on "Fringe Science" I won't assume you mean the same thing.

 

[Jay Walker]

I'm confused. Is the above post your words or are they lifted, without attribution, from some other source? If so, you really should go in and edit the post to give proper credit and a URL where we can look at the original. Anyway...

To answer the questions you need to:

Define what you mean by "natural occurrence."

Define what is meant by, "nature provide the possibility to communicate."

You asked the question in terms of science . To answer the questions you need to define the terms. I know what I would mean by using them but because you posted this on "Fringe Science" I won't assume you mean the same thing.

Thank you for your interest in responding to my brain farts.
To preface my question, I think it would be best to answer your first question
first.
Not lifted.
My inquiry is based on a philosophical theory I am working on.
An original philosophy.
However, out of curiosity, why does the writing come off to you like it was lifted?

Any reference I made was accompanied via hyperlink in the text.
For instance, the statement about DNA sharing similarities with binary code is sited. Even though I was speculating something similar before I came upon the article. I was sharing evidence to support the fact that I am not the only one considering this pov.

Secondly, I think I understand the reason for your question regarding natural occurrence. Occurring in nature is something that science has agreed on to describe a product that has not been manufactured by man.
That is the general idea behind my question.
There are 118 elements on the periodic table, 24 elements do not occur in nature. They are considered synthetic.
My question is directly related. If man is not synthetic, and materials used to produce synthetic products, how is that any different than a honeycomb?

 

[Darby]

I don't know what happened to the above post but half of it disappeared and strike through suddenly appeared. That sentence should not be strike through.

 

[Jay Walker]

I don't know what happened to the above post but half of it disappeared and strike through suddenly appeared. That sentence should not be strike through.

oh, I was wondering about that. Your link to Tyson's vitae disappeared as well.

 

[Darby]

My question is directly related. If man is not synthetic, and materials used to produce synthetic products, how is that any different than a honeycomb?

In that sense they are the same. All material in the universe is made from the first 92 elements in the Periodic Table. Some transuranic elements beyond Uranium do naturally occur. But they are created in minuscule amounts and most have half lives that are very short. The short half-life is a result of the Coulomb Force finally winning over the strong nuclear force in the transuranic nuclei. The protons in the nucleus finally build up into numbers that cause the nucleus to fall apart.

But the short answer is, you're right. A honeycomb and a human differ in the specific elements they are made from but they are otherwise the same...in that limited sense. Their structures and how they came to have those structures is very different. How they function at the quantum mechanical level also differs greatly. As far as we know a honeycomb is neither self-aware nor can it get up and relocate itself.

 

[Jay Walker]

In that sense they are the same. All material in the universe is made from the first 92 elements in the Periodic Table. Some transuranic elements beyond Uranium do naturally occur. But they are created in minuscule amounts and most have half lives that are very short. The short half-life is a result of the Coulomb Force finally winning over the strong nuclear force in the transuranic nuclei. The protons in the nucleus finally build up into numbers that cause the nucleus to fall apart.

But the short answer is, you're right. A honeycomb and a human differ in the specific elements they are made from but they are otherwise the same...in that limited sense. Their structures and how they came to have those structures is very different. How they function at the quantum mechanical level also differs greatly. As far as we know a honeycomb is neither self-aware nor can it get up and relocate itself.

I have to get to work at the moment, but I would be interested to know why I came off as someone who lifted material? Not that I am upset, or offended but I would prefer not to come off that way. It would be a favor to me as an aspiring philosophical writer.

 

[Darby]

Oh, When I read the post and you had the names it read like a dialogue between two people. It was the "Katy asks Neil, Why?" followed by what looked like a response and then there was a section by a third person named S. James Gates.

 

[Darby]

The fact that our DNA works like 2 sets of binary code, A with T, and C with G, like a more complex version of our own computers.

Yes, it is a binary code. The four proteins and how they link up isn't complicated: AT and CG. Just those two pairs. Even the sequence of the AT and CG pairs isn't complicated. But it is complex. A single gene in a single cell organism might be 3,000 pairs long. In a human it is over 27k pairs long. Its no more complicated the HTHTTH, heads, tails, heads, tails, tails and heads. But the specific order of the AT CG pairs, the incredible 7' length of the DNA strands and how the chromosomes assemble it all, that's the complexity. The code that took from 1953 to 2022 to be fully sequenced without any gaps, the paper published, peer reviewed and accepted as correct.

 

[Jay Walker]

The four proteins and how they link up isn't complicated:

I have a feeling that you may not be a Harry Potter fan. This may seem like an odd topic to bring up, but I only intend to use it as an analogy.
In the story, there are people that can wield the power of magic. Most of the time these Witches and wizards are born into families that were inherently magical. When they are young, they attend school to learn how to control magic with their wands.
However, throughout all these lengthy books the fictional society takes classes such as A History of Magic, and potions, etc. Yet, they never ponder the questions, where does it come from? What acts upon what to produce it? More to my initial question, is why the hell would that exist?

In other words, I feel that we as a species don't actually invent anything, but we discover the optimal conditions in which as much potential for possibilities and abilities for the things we discover can create or modify the conditions that once existed, but since then has changed. While we were perfectly capable of surviving within the previous conditions and understanding of the natural world had offered initially.

For example: Our sun emits so much gravitational and electromagnetic energy its influence is believed to reach as far as the Oort cloud 100,000 AUs from our sun.

Just in the field of study known as Fusion Dynamics.
We create processes found in nature, like Nuclear Fusion, Plasma Physics, Magnetic Confinement, Inertial Confinement.

Yet, the amount of energy spent, does not return a net gain.

The potential that still remains undiscovered is unimaginable.

But why the hell would all that potential exist when we as a species can survive with just water, food, fire, and a roof?

Instead, we have unique fingerprints that identify us individually.

We can send our voice or message on a beam of light.

There is now hypothetical potential to send our bodies back through time. Alive.

Why?

 

[Darby]

Our sun emits so much gravitational and electromagnetic energy its influence is believed to reach as far as the Oort cloud 100,000 AUs from our sun.

Absolutely, yes. The gravitational field of the sun covers the entire solar system and beyond. The Oort Cloud is part of the solar system. Even with the Oort Cloud the sun still contains 99.8% of the total mass of the solar system. So it should not be surprising that the gravitational field of the sun affects the Oort Cloud. Gravitation, unlike the strong and weak nuclear forces, has unlimited range. The electromagnetic field, over the entire solar system, is negligible because the number of electrons and protons is approximately equal thus the net charge over vast distances is neutral. Like gravitation, EM fields have no range limit.

 

[Darby]

Yet, the amount of energy spent, does not return a net gain.

And that's a good thing. We can move energy from place to place and even change its form, e.g. from kinetic to potential. But we can't increase or decrease it in a closed system.

Imagine that we could accomplish a net gain of energy. Now imagine a runaway feedback loop that increases the total energy during each cycle through the loop while considering the implication of a "runaway feedback loop". That's an exponential growth of the total energy output through each loop. If your original energy started with 10 units, after 4 loops the total energy would be: x + x^2 + x^3 + x^4 = 11,110 units. I used "units" as a generic term not specifying any particular unit of energy. If you want to use some familiar units make it Celsius (temperature - technically not a unit of "energy"). After 7 cycles the temperature is a bit over 11.1 million degrees C. That's within one order of magnitude of the temperature at the core of the sun. Close enough to make for a very bad day.

So be thankful that energy is a conserved quantity.

Attempting to logic your way through magic in a fictional story setting versus energy conservation in an applied physical science isn't going to bear fruit. In the canon of the fictional story you just have to accept the author's rules of how it all works while acknowledging your inability to independently test those rules through an experiment. The opposite is true in applied science. You can always run an experiment and compare the results against the theoretical science discoveries that the applied science relied upon.

 

[Darby]

There is now hypothetical potential to send our bodies back through time. Alive.

There really isn't much in the way of hypothetical potential (theoretical evidence) to travel backwards in time, alive or otherwise. Because of the way General Relativity is formulated one can plug in certain values for independent variables and cause the output to appear to offer real time travel solutions. But when you compare those solutions to the real world rather than the hypothetical world they fail. Einstein-Rosen Bridges, Closed Timelike Curves, Exotic Matter, Tipler Cylinders, etc. are all based on solutions to General Relativity that describe physical properties of the real world that have never been observed and which, even in theory, are not believed to exist. Some are more "out there" than others. Exotic matter theories require lining a wormhole with exotic matter but actually doing so isn't possible even if exotic matter exists. Tipler Cylinders have to be infinitely long. Closed Timelike Curves require the universe as a whole to have a net angular momentum (the universe as a whole is spinning) which begs the question of where would this excess energy that violates conservation of energy come from?

All interesting and creative ideas but not very useful in the practical sense.

 

[Darby]

But why the hell would all that potential exist when we as a species can survive with just water, food, fire, and a roof?

It could be that because lions, tigers and bears can eat us that simple survival structures, fire and water aren't enough. We are carnivores that tend toward omnivores. We need meat. In the real world of simple survival structures we compete with lions, tigers and bears for that meat. Did I mention that the competition also considers us to be food? Those of us who evolve better brains and bodies have the ability to create better shelters, farms and tools which increase our ability to compete and survive. Those who don't have such good brains and bodies...well...they become pâté de foie pour lions et tigres. Their gene pool terminates.

 

[PREFRONTAL TRAVEL]

I have sort of asked the same questions referencing ...that if all things are made up of natural things ...that the way we take from the earth and expand is not actually bad it is a way of saying...we are cells and that's what cells do eventually we kill the earth because it is supposed to die...it has a cycle like we do to overpopulate it or just when something catastrophic happens....basically what i am trying to say it ...everything is natural and doing naturally what it does, including evolving. Therefor animal rights activist, ecologist whatever global warming fanatics...it's all saying it doesn't matter because if we are a part of the system than no matter what we do, it comes naturally.....as for why things are transported through light as a way of communication....someone once told me ...it is a just world....the one why question you should be asking is......

Why does there have to be a reason can it not just be just because it is.

Humans are always looking for a why....if there is a beginning there must be an end...perhaps all are definitions are the same meaning just different words of phases... If we evaporate water, it does not go away forever, it merely consists in another form; air and it goes off and completes another task to put into its new transformation until it is ended and is perhaps ate up by nitrogen or some other way air depletes itself like through the mouth of our exhausted whys....

 

[Darby]

we are cells and that's what cells do eventually we kill the earth because it is supposed to die

I take it that you're not exactly the life of a party, my friend. You'd make cynics suicidal with this philosophy. We do ask "why" questions because, unlike amoeba, we have brains that have structures...such as the prefrontal cortex. You know, the place where intelligence resides. We are made to be curious, to ask questions and solve puzzles.