Contingent evolution (Introduction)

by GateKeeper , Monday, June 30, 2014, 13:54 (3588 days ago) @ David Turell


> > GK: Then if we look at your god? really? predicting life other than carbon is crazy? You can't even link parts QM to UC. And I can.
> 
> Tell me how. 
> 
> >GK: Calling a simple prediction "out and out conjector" pisses me off.
> 
> I'm sorry to upset you. But we have no evidence of life elsewhere, or what form it might take, other than our carbon-based/ oxygen fuel/ CO2 fuel type. Describe another form to me. I find you constantly make bold statements like the "QM to UC" above, with no discussion to back it up. And that pisses me off. Let's get together and really discuss. I think you have a great deal of offer from what I have seen so far.
>>-I can put the key stone in the arch that holds up your next book. LOL ... If I could write that is. -What upset me were the words "Anything else is out and out conjecture." Yes, I agree that is speculation. But "out and out" used as an adjective in my area has a negative connotation. It implies a "crazy" or "irrational" prediction. So maybe that is just me. -Predicting life elsewhere in the universe based just on the Periodic table is not crazy. It is a fair and reasonable prediction. We can add in notion(s) of "organic matter" on asteroids and comets to state the stance "against life elsewhere" is less reasonable than the stance "that life is elsewhere". I can then link rom's notions (gausset feilds and such) with Brain green's "what is space" to show that the universe is probably alive.-They think two basic notions are needed to "see life". Energy in > than energy out. And a "pattern in iformation exchange". Yes it is "speclative", but do you think its crazy to think we will find "life" elsewhare in the future? -Is it crazyier than your god in QM? or "humans as the goal."?