You have zero qualifications in the relevant fields so the point is moot.
1 Like
Well, shucks, this is how I find out that writing a book and over 440 posts on science & faith, plus my small contributions to the field of public health in my role at a public health software company, not to mention my sporadic posts in this very forum which have received literal ones of likes, donāt qualify me as a public intellectual. Are they insufficiently public or insufficiently intellectual, I wonder. 
Respecting privacy is a good instinct, but in this case, I suspect I have already achieved whatever level of notoriety I am capable of in this context.
Indeed, this is why I suggested to a group of apologists that they might benefit from a journal club, in order to improve their skills at reading the literature and engaging with the actual methods and evidence, rather than just quoting from introductions and discussions.
Primarily @sygarte and @Paul.B.Rimmer, who are not strangers to this forum either.
For what it is worth, my sense from our conversations with Carter is that he is comfortable with this language. The paper in question is a mathematical model exploring the difficulties in a lower-fidelity protein-based* translation system displacing a higher-fidelity RNA-based translation system. From their results, Wills & Carter conclude that translation always involved proteins (or perhaps polypeptides). The extent to which this actually falsifies the RNA World hypothesis of course depends on how well the math represents the breadth of possible scenarios, and how one formulates the RNA World hypothesis.
*Carter has done a lot of work on aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases (aaRS), and it is that function which is the primary focus of the model. Iām sure Wills & Carter are aware that the ribosome peptidyl transferase is a ribozyme, as is frequently discussed here.
Iāll note that we also discussed Carterās experimental work on the evolution of aaRS and the hypothesis that their common ancestor is a single bidirectional gene, work which has produced evidence consistent with the idea that the genetic code has origins which can be understood as a series of steps involving physical mechanisms even if they are not all purely RNA-based.
Iāll reiterate the point that the current cohort of regular posters skew strongly towards expertise in biology rather than physics. You might get more traction if you want to discuss protein evolution or the evolution of sexual reproduction rather than cosmology.
3 Likes
What does that even mean? What point in time was prior to time?
Is it?
Is it?
Why not?
Also isnāt that just re-stating the claim? I donāt think the question/challenge was to explicate what you meant by more-fundamental-ness. I think the point was that itās not obvious that this is the case. Just insisting on it without any argument to support it (ideally one would want evidence, but Iām being charitable and not making such unreasonable demands), surely wonāt progress a discussion on this point.
Someone can, Iām sure, but not from a physics standpoint. Itās woo-woo.
There is no such role for it in physics.
Alright, Iāll bite. How about this:
In what sense is time-reversal a āmiracleā? What, specifically, is the mathematical operation in question, and what, specifically, is your mathematical and/or physical objection to it? Feel free to get as technical as you like and/or can, Iāll keep up for at least most of it, and ask to clarify if and when you get over my head.
Oh, and should your messages contain AI-generated passages, Iāll disengage, of course. I can talk to chat bots without you in the middle, if I so wish.
2 Likes
Perhaps as an abstract coordinate system, like integers are abstractions, but as a physical reality that may or may not be true.
There have be many peer reviewed papers around the beginning of the universe which glance on or involve discussion of divine creation. That does not mean that the authors regard that as within the boundaries of scientific investigation. Nor, for that matter, is it universally accepted that the multiverse is a scientific hypothesis. Those who regard the idea as scientific tend to argue that there are observations which could determine the question, and those who view the idea as not scientific tend to view the idea as not testable in principle. Just because an idea is materialistic does not necessarily make it scientific, and the proposal of a Creator is of course not material and forever outside the scope of science.
By Ethan Siegel: Is The Multiverse A Scientific Theory?
Iām on the skeptical front: the Multiverse may be interesting and a seemingly inevitable theoretical consequence of physics. But until we can test it scientifically ā and it may be that we never can ā it is not quite good enough to be science. Itās a theoretical conjecture, one that makes sense, but it isnāt a scientific theory, and thanks to the limitations of the Universe, it may never be.
George F. R. Ellis writes in Scientific American Does the Multiverse Really Exist?
Parallel universes may or may not exist; the case is unproved. We are going to have to live with that uncertainty. Nothing is wrong with scientifically based philosophical speculation, which is what multiverse proposals are. But we should name it for what it is.
So budding philosopher of science, you cannot ever scientifically reason along the lines of we do not know, therefore my conclusion. Ignorance as to if or how the universe started is never scientific evidence for anything. You are, of course, free to speculate philosophically.
I expect the reception is much warmer when you are preaching to the choir.
Most everyone here is very, very, aware of the role AI plays in research, and fully understand the development, operation, utility, and misuse of the technology.
As others have stated, you have presented little in the way of actual science to discuss, and seem very eager to just jump straight from preferred assumed positions to apologetics.
2 Likes
For a very broad understanding of āfalsifiedā not all that dissimilar from ā2+2=5 for very large values of 2ā.
1 Like
Youāre the psychiatrist, what do you think? My take is that when you become convinced that you are the repository of Godās absolute truth, nothing is beyond your kenā¦ LOL
Is it? Please show me a spacetime with no matter, energy, or radiation.
When and where was that established?
Dude youāre just asserting this stuff. Itās literally nothing more than your say-so. None of these claims have been shown true anywhere. In fact itās disputed that you can have truly empty space, given the uncertainty principle.
2 Likes
Hey Andy!
Iām sorry if I offended you. I was simply trying not to put you on the spot. Iām sorry if my phrasing was offputting. I was simply thinking that you are not a university professor.
You write: āIāll reiterate the point that the current cohort of regular posters skew strongly towards expertise in biology rather than physics. You might get more traction if you want to discuss protein evolution or the evolution of sexual reproduction rather than cosmology.ā
I was under the impression the forum attracted scientists from all fields. Iām glad to hear that Paul Rimmer contributes here and Iām sorry there are not more like him.
Good to see you, Andy!
It seems some conclude that because, say., string theory and the multiverse a) do not currently lend themselves to empirical testing and b) are weird, anyone can therefore cobble together some whacky ātheoryā and expect it to be taken seriously as a scientific idea. Here is Sean Carroll trying patiently to explain to one such crackpot why it doesnāt work like that:
3 Likes
No harm done. I knew you were trying not to āoutā me. But I saw an opportunity to reveal that Iām not anonymous here with a self-deprecating humblebrag, so I took it.
And thatās true, up to some level of coarse-graining of scientific inquiry. But among frequent posters, not all fields are equally represented. So I thought Iād give you some pointers towards topics where the probability of striking mutual interest is higher.
You neither posted nor cited any scientific evidence.
No one attacked you personally.
Right here! When are you planning to present some actual science?
How can they be? They donāt exist.
I think that we have very different definitions of science. Yours appears to be closer to my definition of high-school debate.
This is a great idea. What do you think, Ronald? Why donāt you present the paper you cited in a new thread, focusing on the actual scientific evidence, with zero quotes?
Evidence only. Whaddaya think?
Letās lower the bar. Have you ever really read one as real scientists do, focusing on the evidence? I hypothesize that you have not.