Earth and biological matter

[Quest of knowledge]

I don’t think the universe has any more awareness of us than my liver has of the atoms that form it. I think our current senses would not allow us to conduct any form of empirical analysis to that effect, but perhaps one day before we become extinct, we might.

Sorry, but no, that assertion that we cannot conduct any research given our senses is far from the truth. We do have a whole array of evidence of the phenomena in question, we can use celestial mechanics to work out structures and dynamics of the universe through equations and there's this whole scientific study called "Cosmology" we've only been working on for thousands of years.

That's not how the scientific method works, we don't build up an understanding or knowledge base in one field of study, like for example human biology, only then to refute our own knowledge by stating "We don't know" when we can't find a second heart in our bodies. That's a ridiculously unreasonable position that rejects everything we do know about reality. Now sure, there are many grey areas that lack a clearer more transparent explanation but that's to be expected given how complex reality is.

Last time we checked 'Life' is the condition or self-replicating sequence which distinguishes active organisms from inorganic matter. All the available empirical evidence points to the universe displaying no characteristics of signalling and self-sustaining processes present in living organisms.

Now its maybe your own intuition that this cosmos is a living being, but like with theist's asserting some god-thingy outside space-time did everything if the universe is actually alive we need evidence of these characteristics first. I encourage open-mindedness and we're free to speculate what might constitute as other life forms or seek a more accurate definition of "life", but its counterintuitive to shun the available evidence as "We don't know" when it points us to the universe demonstrating no signs of being alive simply because you hold to your gut feelings that it might be.

Please check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_functional_theory for an example of how mathematics attempts to record (mathematics is above all a language) phenomena and how in physics, cosmology, and engineering formulas are changed periodically to account for more precise observation of phenomena.

A good friend of mine is a very high profile professor of chemical engineering. He does a great deal of private work for the largest petrochemical multinationals. His work consists in deriving formulae for the development of catalysts for the extraction of polymers with specific properties. I have spent many hours watching him conduct experiments and edit formulae to fit results, conduct new experiments, revise formulae, and continue for weeks. Once he obtained the desired catalyst to extract polymers with the desired properties, my friend would have some of his graduate students conduct experiments based on his formulae. Once those third parties were able to repeat the experiments and obtain the exact same polymers separately, my friend would then send his formula to his petrochemical clients. He starts with a mathematical formula based on his previous knowledge, but the end formula is based on the experiments and not the other way around.

Mathematics is the only universal language of humans, and we use it to record, not discover, knowledge. Mathematics is then used to learn already discovered knowledge.

---

ABierman,


I have been thinking that perhaps the answer to understanding the Universe is to study the micro Universe. If we find a micro scale of what we observe as the larger Universe, we would be able to infer some sort of repeating sequences. That, of course, would only be possible if indeed there were repeating paterns. The thought is related to the fact that atoms are like solar systems with their electrons as planets and that neutrons, protons, and eletrons are in turn composed of smaller components.

Not as much like a solar system as you think.
The idea that electrons orbit atomic nucleus is known as a 'lie to children'.
Its not the truth, but it kinda gives you a simplistic idea.

electrons exist at the quantum scale and the quantum scale is freaky wierd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_configuration
The orbiting electrons dont behave like planets but exist in a 'cloud' a

Thank you for the information. This is a great example of how science finds it necessary to challenge and change all previous scientific knowledge on the pursuit of new knowledge. The website you sent me does not contradict the theory of orbital electrons, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_functional_theory offers an alternative explanation of electron theory and it explains it mathematically. Given our knowledge of science, it is entirely predictable that both theories will sooner than later be proven inconsistent with further knowledge of atomic knowledge, and a new theory will have to be developed.

That is the beauty of science. Like perfection, it is not a destination but a journey. In my case, it is a quest