Does evolution begin on big bang level?
Does evolution begin on the quarks level?
In our earthly world there is only one fundamental
particle - electron
Does evolution begin on the electron’s level?
Can an electron evolve?
Does an electron have consciousness ?
Energy is electromagnetic waves (em): E=hf
Lorentz proved: there isn’t em waves without Electron
It means the source of these em waves must be an Electron
The electron and the em waves they are physical reality
Can evolution of life begin on electron’s level?
=.
Molecular biology & molecular evolution
Cosmology & cosmic evolution
If Universe evolve can electron evolve too ?
Does evolution of life begin on electron level ?
Origin of life is a result of physical laws that govern Universe
Electron takes important part in this work
Question:
Why does the simplest particle - electron have six formulas:
E=hf e = +ahc e = -ahc +E=Mc^2 -E=Mc^2 E= ∞ ?
Nobody knows
Question:
Why does electron obey five ( 5) Laws ?
a) Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass
b) Maxwell’s equations
c) Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law
d) Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law
e) Fermi-Dirac statistics
Nobody knows.
=.
Quote by Heinrich Hertz on Maxwell’s equations:
“One cannot escape the feeling that these mathematical formulae
have an independent existence and an intelligence of their own,
that they are wiser than we are, wiser even than their discoverers,
that we get more out of them than was originally put into them.”
==.
Ladies and Gentlemen !
Friends !
Electron is not as simple as we think and, maybe, he is wiser than we are.
==========.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
========.
Comment by Frank Steve
=.
The Electron Conscious?
At first glance this seems to be a rather senseless question. But then IONS founder has been known to ask “Does the Universe Perceive? The first is a micro question that implies the macro nature of the latter.
So here is my reasoning. If electrons of an oxygen atom enter and then mysteriously leave their emergent atomic fields of manifestation in precise femtosecond timing …and then instantly change their enter-exit frequencies when their atoms nucleus combines with two hydrogen atoms to form water … how do they know how … and when to do this instantaneous switch? So the question is really two questions:
1 – Do electrons possess dynamic states of awareness?
2 – If so, are they also conscious … i.e. comparative reasoning?
3 – And if they do possess limited spans of conscious, do they self-control their reactive behaviors?
/ Frank Steve /
This is interesting…critical events and phenomena,
in the universe are determined by occurrences at the
elemental level, through biochemical processes or changes
in energy states.
These events will occur with or without human intervention
or perception…ie, we don’t to have to know for the universe
to exist… and breathe.
So, is the universe aware of our existence?
And does it matter that we exist?
/ awori achoka /
The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys
at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time
will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works
of William Shakespeare.
The probability of a monkey exactly typing a complete work such
as Shakespeare’s Hamlet is so tiny that the chance of it occurring
during a period of time of the order of the age of the universe
is extremely low, but not zero.
. . . . .
If there are as many monkeys as there are particles in the
observable universe . . . . the probability of the monkeys replicating
even a short book is nearly zero.
It means that by chance it is impossible to create
Intellect Existence during 13 - 20 billions of years
after ‘big bang’.
The Intellect Existence needs some intellect beginning.
============…
socratus
My conclusion:
=.
We have two opportunities.
One opportunity .
By the Chance it was impossible to create Intellect Existence
during as short time as 13 - 20 billions years after ‘big bang’.
The intelligence could have never appeared By the Chances
according to Theory of Probability (as per the infinite monkey
theorem) because it is not enough time for creating it.
The Evolution (which gave a rise to intelligence ) according
to Theory of Probability By the Chance it is impossible.
It must be some intelligence beginning.
If ‘big bang ’ true theory (and we are materialists ) then we must
find an intellectual beginning inside it.
Now physicists have zoo of elementary particles.
Which of them can take functions of intellectual beginning ?
Can every particle of this zoo have beginning of consciousness?
I think, no.
Why?
Because in our Earthly world there is only one smallest practical
fundamental particle - electron.
Now is possible to ask:
Does evolution begin on the electron’s level?
Does an electron have consciousness ?
Can an electron evolve?
What is an electron?
=.
Second opportunity .
The theory ‘big bang’ is wrong.
And then according to Theory of Probability the Universe has
chance not zero but nearly zero to creat Intellect Existence.
So. Einstein’s question ‘ Does God play dice ? ’ is still open.
====.
Socratus
=======.
I just watched movie Tron: Legacy today and actually was a bit impressed. It really hit home with some of it’s underlying themes… although I was annoyed with the script and some of the inclusions which were made solely to appease a target audience. That’s why I hate most movies these days yet I still do find gems in them.
Though I won’t proclaim that this is anything profound, I did enjoy the discussion of ISOS within the film. The ISOS were a program (lifeform) that emerged out of nowhere and had incredible abilities beyond that of humans, as well as immense wisdom and compassion. Sam asks his father (the creator of “The Grid” and all of the programs in it) “So, did you create the ISOS?” He responds first with laughter “Create the ISOS? No, no, no we didn’t create the ISOS. They simply came to be. The conditions were right and they emerged, like a flame.” This he called a miracle. I won’t go as far to call life and consciousness a miracle, simply because the term has no place in scientific discussion. It is however, like you said before when you described the “monkey theorem”, almost prohibitively unlikely. There must something else that we are not seeing. The source of consciousness…can’t we just accept that there is consciousness? Just as we can never understand the concept of there being nothing and then something. We could never understand how there could be no experience, then all of a sudden…experience. It does seem however that in the history of our universe something emerged from nothing not just once but… at least twice.
Oh and by the way please don’t misinterpret what I’m saying, I’m not trying to purport that there is an objective form of God or really any form of God at all. Just talking.
Book: What is your dangerous idea?
/ Edited by John Brockman /
Article:
Seeing Darwin in the light of Einstein;
Seeing Einstein in the light of Darwin.
/ by Lee Smolin. /
===.
Seeing Einstein in the light of Darwin suggests that
natural selection could act not only on living things
but on the properties defining the various species
of elementary particles.
/ Page 115 /
We physicists have now to understand Darwin’s lesson:
The only way to understand how one out of a vast number
of choices was made, which favors improbable structure,
is that is the result of evolution by natural selection.
/ Page 117 /
Now the only possible way of accounting for the laws of nature,
and for uniformity in general, is to suppose them results of evolution.
/ Page 117 /
And I believe that once this is achieved, Einstein and Darwin
will be understood as partners in the greatest revolution yet in science, . . .
/ Page 118 /
=====================.
Book ‘ The trouble with Physics’ / by Lee Smolin /
Part 8. The first superstring revolution.
Page 126 – 127.
‘. . . the growing catalog of string theories meant that
we weren’t actually studying a fundamental theory.’ . . .
‘ . . . but the many versions of string theory opened up
the possibility that it was true of essentially all the
properties of the elementary particles and forces. This would
mean that properties of the elementary particles were
environmental and could change in time. If so, it would mean
that physics would be more like biology, in that the
properties of the elementary particles would depend on the
history of our universe. ‘
( These thoughts would lead to a 1992 paper titled ‘ Did the
Universe Evolve?’ and a 1997 book called
‘ The Life of the Cosmos.’ Our story later turns on these ideas.)
Lee Smolin.
[leesmolin.com/](http://www.leesmolin.com/)
The trouble is what we are missing that explains consciousness is currently unexplorable. Be it the lifetime of existence being infinite and so given enough time anything can happen, or there being infinite universes only some of which support conscious life. We just don’t know, could be something even more bizarre like God! Weird.
To postulate there is more to consciousness than the laws of the Universe that spawned them is currently not a scientific question. Although that doesn’t stop Socrates trying, even if most of the time he is talking to himself.
Well…that’s sort of one way to put it. I think you are focusing to much on whether or not there is a God. Anytime we start to talk about the existence of God we are objectifying God, we are making God a thing. If you do not believe that God can be objectified then…don’t do this anymore. Instead of God, say nature. In this case. I can’t remember who it was but he mentioned depicting God as a process not an outcome. Yeah, let’s do that.
The important thing to understand here is that he (Jeff Bridges) created a virtual world, something that he thought he had complete control over. What he failed to realize however was that this virtual world still exist within our realm of reality at the most basic level and was thereby subject to the laws of nature. Seemingly the laws of nature proceed even in a world that cannot be effected by the laws of physics. There is something so much deeper, something that we cannot call God so much as we can call it the inherent will of the universe to fully understand itself…or something…and it had expressed itself even in this virtual world through the ISOS programs.
Hahaha as I finished up that post I was just thinking about how everything I wrote was still in…words. Then I was like, who the fuck cares about this semantics shit anyway, what the hell am I talking about?!
I don’t know, wouldnt that put philosophers out of the job? Maybe not, You ever watch Ghost in the Shell? Thats what they do on there, sometimes… Braindive.
The Tachikomas(“think tanks”) do that more often, they go about their days like individuals then at the end of the day they merge their data and have a hard time trying too figure out who experianced certain memories first rather than justs syncing up with those who actually experianced them firsthand.
