Thread: Atoms

I may be quoting Michio Kaku here, I'm not quite sure. Evolution is random in the sense that given a certain environment, you can't predict ahead of time what the creatures that evolve will look like. However, you can very accurately predict their relationships. For example, you know that there will be predators and prey, and the predators will have brains and legs, etc. It's what's known as "directed chaos" in some circles. You chaotically approach a fuzzy equilibrium that can be known in advance to some degree.

Are you talking about quantum mechanics or just the fact that to us things are randomly floating around. In the latter statement, things are still based on the laws and are deterministic. The quantum thing is the strange one. I still don't understand the whole wave collapsing thing (what collapses it?). So ok, everything is random, but that goes for the universe, no reason to "expose" just evolution or chemical reactions.

Things can only be random if it shows in multiple tests. And for that we'd need several universes and see how they react under the same conditions. If they'd be the same then even if it seems to be random, because of quantum mechanics, to its inhabitants, it doesn't mean it's actually so. Right?

I think you're confused... what do you mean by 'exposing' evolution? Evolution is what we are talking about. We are talking about whether or not evolution is random. You've agreed that the universe is random (because it is not uniform), and it follows that evolution, which takes place in the universe, is also random.

When a mutation takes place in genetic material, it does not target any particular location. The difference in the resultant organism will hence be random. This is what is meant by the randomness of evolution.

Ok. I guess I got confused and I jumped to another topic (What is randomness?). I was saying that something which seems random might be deterministic and that this wouldn't mean that there is a god involved (which is what Gestalt said, I think).

I think Gestalt's argument is more in the vein of the fine tuning of the universe. I believe in fine tuning but I don't answer it with a floating man in the sky (the word 'answer' is used loosely here).

I think you were getting confused with quantum randomness, which is really quite different from the randomness we see on a macroscopic scale. The randomness we see in, for example, evolution, is a product of the same deterministic laws acting upon different matter.

Although in a sense, the thing which caused all the matter to be non-uniform in the first place was quantum effects at the start of the universe... but I hope you can see what I am talking about.

Originally Posted by Hera

There must come a point when you cannot braek down any further.
If there was no begining how could there be an end?

Easy:
If there is no start then there cannot be an end.

If you want people to know evolution isn't random than tell supporters to stop spreading that around. And frankly it's absurd to think there's no randomness involved. Otherwise evolution itself would be a conscious entity.

Evolution involves a degree of random chance, but the process itself is not random.

If evolution were completely random, then it would not follow a path but would instead move randomly in various directions. In actuality, it takes a very specific path: when under environmental attrition, organisms that are better suited will survive more.

Also, to say a lack of randomness means something is conscious is nonsense. There are many physical processes that generate completely static, non-random outputs.

A naive question at first sight, but it is not really.

Scientific reasoning has up to the middle of the 20th century been that the world is constituted of independently existing, real and objective atoms, which interact with each other as humans can describe with their sets of mathematical rules. Unless you are supposing a dualistic world view, there are no objectively existing rules that matter follow, just our scientific models offer near enough predictions.

There are NO definite answers in this direction, and a child of under 15 is most likely a lot better to marvel at this, due to a less biased point of view.

At what point is a collection of atoms called a tree, or a cat? This is certainly one of the most difficult questions to answer. What makes a collection of atoms a tree? How can another set of atoms be aware of the first set of atoms being called a tree, and how can a third set of atoms express that thought?

Certainly, there is a mistake within the scientific, objective world view, or atleast we do not understand it sufficiently. Perhaps the observer and the observed should not be thought of as separate, but as parts of the whole. This is common in quantum mechanics where it is impossible to separate the "observed object" and the apparatus that does the measuring. This principle seems to hold in all cases. There is no thought-form that my mind probes when i think: The content of a thought is the thought itself. Similarly to there is no seperate matter that an instrument can measure or our body can feel, and no separate "emotion" out there that our brains tune into.

It is a unity.

Now, how can atoms constitute a cat?

*We have no understanding of how atoms came to being, there is no consensus about the Big Bang, and no description at all about "why".
*If we take the Big Bang as the starting point, cosmological evolution explains how the solar system could have formed. The biological theory of evolution then attempts to explain how life evolved. Science has theories to show how such systems could be created.
BUT it is not much closer to answering the initial question, just has complicated it with ultimately irrelevant details.

.

Now, how can atoms constitute a cat?

At what point is a collection of atoms called a tree, or a cat?

Before I answer this question, I should point out that it's somewhat meaningless simply because a cat, tree, whatever is simply the label we have given an object that has a set of characteristics. It's a label we use for convenience.

So at what point does a collection of atoms become a cat? When they have come together in a configuration that has the characteristics of a feline (which we have defined). It's a sliding scale from no cat-like characteristics at one end to very cat-like characteristics at the other. The point at which we step in and say "okay that's a cat" is arbitrary. It's like arguing at what point on a gradient of blue to red does the colour stop being purple and become red.

In the same way that we define species in taxonomy is using an arbitrary reference point.

there are no objectively existing rules that matter follow, just our scientific models offer near enough predictions.

Why are there no objectively existing rules? Just because our scientific models may or may not provide a complete explanation, how does this mean these rules do not exist? Nonsense!

and how can a third set of atoms express that thought?

Due to the properties of the human brain and the neural networks and biochemistry it is based on.

I hope you all see my dumb 15 year old question has created 3 pages of debate. Yes quite a bit of what you guys are saying i dont understand but i am trying my best.

Ill give in my 2 cents here:
Evolution cannot be random, it's all due to the the environment and the life style of the being. A human for example we didn't just randomly evolve it was a slow process due to where and how we lived, for example black people lived in areas of imense sun light so over many years they developed dark skin as protection of the sun.

If every thing was random there could be no uniform shape of a cat (sorry i do like cats) or a tree.

But also if everything was uniform every thing would be the same . . . wouldn't it???

White people evolved from black people... your ancestors are black.

And yes, in the sense you are talking about evolution is not random, but remember there must be randomness in the genetic code to provide favourable traits in the first place.

About objects... well, that's a tricky one. Under Photolysis's definition, one wonders what can actually be called real.

I am inclined to believe in the objective validity of collections of atoms, personally, because the collection of atoms in our brain - an object - has given rise to something which is objectively undeniable - our consciousness.

And yes, in the sense you are talking about evolution is not random, but remember there must be randomness in the genetic code to provide favourable traits in the first place.

Underlying randomness sorted by a non-random process. It's a distinction that many people cannot grasp.

About objects... well, that's a tricky one. Under Photolysis's definition, one wonders what can actually be called real.

I am inclined to believe in the objective validity of collections of atoms, personally, because the collection of atoms in our brain - an object - has given rise to something which is objectively undeniable - our consciousness.

I wasn't trying to comment on how real an item was as such, simply that many properties of objects are analogue, and that people need to stop getting so hung up when using labels. Asking the question "how close does an object have to be to fit this label before we can use it" is pointless when dealing with something that does not operate using discrete values.

Additionally, it's also important that people realise that many things operate on a sliding scale. It's not a binary "cat or not a cat" thing. Labels can be a useful tool but people need to understand that they are just reference points for convenience.