Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : FREE AMERICA -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (14272)	6/11/2007 11:22:37 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14758

"The importance of this part of the debate is to come to some rational resolution about existence being either eternal or not." Why does it need to be resolved? I mean I understand why scientists study it, but for the rest of us, what does it matter? What's so tough with just living in the here and now?

To: one_less who wrote (14272)	6/11/2007 1:20:32 PM
From: Brumar89	Respond to of 14758

The tiny thing that was banged was a uniform singularity of substance ... similar or exactly like the phenomenon of black holes where all the substance that enters loses its separateness and is so condensed and uniform that it can't be distinguished by having a place in space apart from other things in space. Since such singularity has no physical distinction or space distinction, it can also be referred to as no-thing (something goes to nothing becomes scientific), although some scientists object to the 'nothing' terminology and prefer to use the term singularity. All true. Something people don't seem to realize about the big bang is that our universe's space and time came into existence at the same time as our energy and matter. So the big bang comes as an explosion of this singularity into the many separate things in space ... our universe. The universe also contracts or collapses as we see in black holes. So if the universe has an oscillating function of collapsing and banging again, the process could go on forever. However, if that were true we are still stuck with this uncomfortable notion of eternity in an existence we call temporal. Per my readings, the oscillating universe idea has definitely been rejected. The universe will keep expanding forever. However, no one has been able to replicate a process of life from non-life so their is some underlying aspect of life force that remains mysterious. Not only has no one been able to do so, there is very good reason to think it is impossible. Hubert Yockey, addressing the origin of life problem from an information theory standpoint, has said there is no possibility of a scientific explanation for the origin of the genetic code. The protein first and nucleic acid first theories have not been fruitful. The best minds that have addressed the issue have tended to put forward panspermia as the only way life could have begun on earth. Which doesn't solve the origin problem, just pushes it off earth. "The paradox is seldom mentioned that enzymes are required to define or generate the reaction network, and the network is required to synthesize the enzymes and their component amino acids. There is no trace in physics or chemistry of the control of chemical reactions by a sequence of any sort or of a code between sequences. Thus, when we make the distinction between the origin of the genetic code and its evolution, we find the origin of the genetic code is unknowable."