Do you believe in Free-Will, the Soul, and God?

[Lincoln]

Well there are a few reasons. One is that the sequence of DNA is unique to a biological organism or it is not living. A purely random order does not make life and there is nothing in the laws of physics that causes it to be anything but random. And there is certainly no law of physics that causes it to be divided into a three letter (chemical AGCT) code.

[Ramo]

In biology you have to look at every single detail.

You don't have to deal with the effect electron scattering on protons and impulses from light would affect biological systems. They are VERY abstracted.

You can't begin to examine neurobiology and say: fine, skip half the facts, its not necessary.

You don't have to look at it at the same level of detail as if you were examining it to a physical level.

Having taken both a class on quantum physics and neurobiology and not ebing a sciewnce major at all (hurrah for core requirements) I can say that both demanded a streneous look at the details.

No doubt. However, there are different levels of abstractions between the two subjects. And the systems you've studied in your physics class are undoubtedly less complex than a brain.

When you study a house made of brics, it is key to understand bircks, their make-up and what they can tolerate: but there is still something more, something no longer based on the bricks, once you create the house, which is why we have both architects and structural engineers. I don't know anyone who would tell me that the study of arhcitecture is simply an simple abstraction of the stury of materials.

I'd say that being an architect is the study of building buildings. The architect doesn't need to know a number of lower level details that a physicist might need to know.

Well there are a few reasons. One is that the sequence of DNA is unique to a biological organism or it is not living. A purely random order does not make life and there is nothing in the laws of physics that causes it to be anything but random. And there is certainly no law of physics that causes it to be divided into a three letter (chemical AGCT) code.

It's all very complex biology abstracted at a very high level. Just because there's no physical law that says DNA should be created a certain way doesn't mean that there aren't physical laws ultimately at the base of it.

[Lincoln]

"Just because there's no physical law that says DNA should be created a certain way doesn't mean that there aren't physical laws ultimately at the base of it."

Well what are they?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ramo
I'd say that being an architect is the study of building buildings. The architect doesn't need to know a number of lower level details that a physicist might need to know.

To keep the analogy going: An architect need not know all the particulars of steel and glass making, just have an idea of their tolerance: but he must deal with countless problems of space management, lighting, movement of individuals, so forth and so on that are just as complex and difficult as the issue of steel making and glass making.

An archictect must know more than how to build a building: he must know how to make an effective and successful building.

I still see a huge amount of opinion based on bias, not fact.

[Lincoln]

"I'd say that being an architect is the study of building buildings. The architect doesn't need to know a number of lower level details that a physicist might need to know."

Yes, but I think you missed his point. Making a brick does not qualify one to build a building. Are you suggesting a divine architect here?

[Alexander's Horse]

Predestination is a bit of a blind alley really. Its doesn't lead anywhere because in mainstream Christian belief only God knows the secret intentions of the heart and the state of someone's soul.

It was important in the melting pot of the reformation because it was used by some usually small extremist protestant groups to claim that they were right and everyone else was wrong. In other words, they were the "Elect" and everyone else was going to hell.

[Dauphin]

What Ramo is saying is that with 'near perfect' knowledge of the laws of physics and the states of matter you could build a building, or explain biological processes.

At each level of complexity emergent properties reveal themselves - with gas in a box they are things like temperature and pressure. It is far easier to work with temperature and pressure than it is with 10³⁰ molecules. It also yields results that are virtually identical to the molecular approach.

So too, biology and chemisty are emergent properties of physics. They are far simple to use, just as accurate, and work with different variables. They are still derivable from base physical principles, although it would be a gargantuan task to attempt such a proof.

[mrboo123]

YES, YES, YES!

If you must know, I'm Latter-day Saint, (better know as "Mormon") and we do NOT do Polygamy!

[Lincoln]

"I'm really surprised the concept is still kicking around."

Maybe because it is true?? Missusing a truth does not turn it into a lie. Your first paragraph says it all though.

[GePap]

But one does not need tho know any physics to build a magnificent building: just look at the Pyramids.

Yes, physics is the base of everything, but to think we need to know all about sub-atomic particles and quantum physics to understand biological or chemical systems is not wholly correct. Which is why all this new knowledge of physics has NOT lead to inproved knowledge of biology. figuring out all about physics will not cure cancer or AIDS. at best, highly detailed knowledge of physics gives us better tools to examine biological systems: they do not explain them.

Lincoln: At least you see the point, though I do not agree with the need for a divine arhcitect. After all, if some Eastern relgions are correct, this world is just an ilusion of suffering to which you are attached.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
What Ramo is saying is that with 'near perfect' knowledge of the laws of physics and the states of matter you could build a building, or explain biological processes.

At each level of complexity emergent properties reveal themselves - with gas in a box they are things like temperature and pressure. It is far easier to work with temperature and pressure than it is with 10³⁰ molecules. It also yields results that are virtually identical to the molecular approach.

So too, biology and chemisty are emergent properties of physics. They are far simple to use, just as accurate, and work with different variables. They are still derivable from base physical principles, although it would be a gargantuan task to attempt such a proof.

Someone who uses a chain saw to cut down a tree isn't necessarily qualified to build a bridge. A biological organism cannot be reduced to the laws of physics except on a micro level. What law causes AGCTCCGTAAA not to be GCCATTCAGGA?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by GePap
Yes, physics is the base of everything, but to think we need to know all about sub-atomic particles and quantum physics to understand biological or chemical systems is not wholly correct. Which is why all this new knowledge of physics has NOT lead to inproved knowledge of biology. figuring out all about physics will not cure cancer or AIDS. at best, highly detailed knowledge of physics gives us better tools to examine biological systems: they do not explain them.

I don't disagree. What I do say is that the biology and pyramid building must conform to the laws of physics. The laws of physics do not say you can't cure cancer - however they do say that the there is no such thing as free-will.

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by GePap


Lincoln: At least you see the point, though I do not agree with the need for a divine arhcitect. After all, if some Eastern relgions are correct, this world is just an ilusion of suffering to which you are attached.

I agree with the suffering part but I am not sure it is an illusion. I think that Buddah was a man of wisdom though. I just can't seem to find nirvana...

[Ramo]

To keep the analogy going: An architect need not know all the particulars of steel and glass making, just have an idea of their tolerance: but he must deal with countless problems of space management, lighting, movement of individuals, so forth and so on that are just as complex and difficult as the issue of steel making and glass making.

An archictect must know more than how to build a building: he must know how to make an effective and successful building.

I still see a huge amount of opinion based on bias, not fact.

You're completely missing what I'm getting at. Aesthetics and whatnot are derivable from a physical analysis of the brain (assuming total knowledge), and from simple optimization problems.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Someone who uses a chain saw to cut down a tree isn't necessarily qualified to build a bridge.

I don't see the relevance of the analogy. Could you explain it.

A biological organism cannot be reduced to the laws of physics except on a micro level.

I would argue they can. But doing so would be extremely time-consuming. In practice it would never be done. Just as you don't reduce a hurricane to its base laws of physics.

What law causes AGCTCCGTAAA not to be GCCATTCAGGA?

What law causes a die to come up 6 instead of 1? Its all about original conditions and time evolution. The laws governing it would be the laws pertaining to electromagnetic forces.