The market is a controlled dynamic system. - page 532
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
I think in relation to mutations, the turbidity, the ambiguity, the uncertainty is much deeper. What is a mutation and what is not a mutation. What can be considered a mutation and what cannot be considered a mutation. Whether this boundary is invariable or this boundary depends on external and / or internal conditions. And so on and so forth.
there are internal forces in the genome (inherent possibility, by whom or what, that is the question) that make amino acids combine in a protein. i suspect this is just chemistry and nothing else.
and there are external forces, radiation, chemical compounds (including complex chemical compounds such as viruses) and living organisms that make species genome change.
So, it's pretty simple.
in simple terms, mutation is the appearance of a persistent combination in the genome that has not yet existed in the population.
so, at an elementary level, it is reasonable to think of living organisms as simple chemical processes, i.e., inevitable.
Another important unanswered question is whether the emergence of mind is inevitable due to simple chemical processes.
recent discoveries by astronomers have shown that complex organic compounds needed to build amino acids and more complex molecules are ubiquitous in the Milky Way, so comets, which form from protoplanetary dust during the formation of the star system, may be carrying and continuously carrying biological material to planets. under such conditions, something will start to move.
our star is quite ancient, more than 4.6 billion years old (while the earth is 4.5 billion years old), which is 30% of the age of the Universe! given the above, it would be unlikely that life would never have appeared.
however, how ubiquitous is life in the universe? - not as widespread as one might think, firstly, there are not enough old stars that have formed planets with "calm" atmospheres, supernova explosions sterilise the surrounding space for tens and hundreds of light years around, etc. etc...... thus, and here we see some semblance of evolution on a universal scale, planets are formed in huge numbers, but not all are destined to be fried to sterile state by starbursts of neighbouring stars by temperature and harsh radiation.
soon enough, compared to the age of our star system, the Sun will turn into a supernova (pardon, Nova), meaning that Earth life has quite little left to live on. in short, we need to get off the planet as soon as possible.
there are internal forces in the genome (inherent in the possibility, by whom or what, that is the question) that force the combination of amino acids in a protein. i suspect this is just chemistry and nothing else.
and there are external forces, radiation, chemical compounds (including complex chemical compounds such as viruses) and living organisms that make species genome change.
So, it's pretty simple.
in simple terms, mutation is the appearance of a persistent combination in the genome that has not yet existed in the population.
so, at an elementary level, it is reasonable to think of living organisms as simple chemical processes, i.e., inevitable.
Another important unanswered question is whether the emergence of mind is inevitable due to simple chemical processes.
recent discoveries by astronomers have shown that complex organic compounds needed to build amino acids and more complex molecules are ubiquitous in the Milky Way, so comets, which form from protoplanetary dust during the formation of the star system, may be carrying and continuously carrying biological material to planets. under such conditions, something will start to move.
our star is quite ancient, more than 4.6 billion years old (while the earth is 4.5 billion years old), which is 30% of the age of the Universe! given the above, it would be unlikely that life would never have appeared.
however, how ubiquitous is life in the universe? - not as widespread as one might think, firstly, there are not enough old stars that have formed planets with "calm" atmospheres, supernova explosions sterilise the surrounding space for tens and hundreds of light years around, etc. etc......Thus, and here we see some semblance of evolution on a universal scale, planets are formed in great numbers, but not all are destined not to be fried to a sterile state by starbursts of neighbouring stars by temperature and harsh radiation.
These are all hypotheses, nothing more. There is not a single "ironclad" confirmation of these hypotheses. Neither about "just chemistry", nor about the age of the Universe, etc. And the generally accepted thesis about Big Bang, which supposedly started the Universe, does not look acceptable now. Present physics and chemistry do not touch to questions of consciousness yet. Work is being done in this direction, but it is only at the beginning of the road.
These are all hypotheses, nothing more. There is not a single "ironclad" confirmation of these hypotheses. Not about "just chemistry", not about the age of the Universe, etc. And the generally accepted thesis about the Big Bang, which supposedly started the Universe, does not look acceptable now. Physics and chemistry do not touch to questions of consciousness yet. Work is being done in this direction, but is only at the beginning of the road.
about consciousness - that's what I said, unknown.
about everything else - confirmed by experiments.
the age of the foreseeable universe is little doubt, another thing is that the Big Bang itself may indeed not have happened, many progressive cosmologists already lean in favour of a cyclical life of the universe.
about "concrete proof"... hmm, it is not necessary to know the world, that's what differs reasonable beings from unreasonable ones, for which it is necessary to taste and feel to be sure.
Moreover, it is possible to learn about the world without getting out of a chair, being unable to walk, and subsequently obtain confirmation of hypotheses.
Those who are the first to make bold and new hypotheses (in any field of human activity), they get fame, position in society, prosperity.
about consciousness - that's what I said, unknown.
As for everything else, it's confirmed by experiments.
the age of the observable universe is little doubt, another thing is that the Big Bang itself may indeed not have happened, already many progressive cosmologists lean in favour of a cyclic life of the universe.
about "ironclad confirmation"... hmm, it is not necessary to know the world, that's what differs reasonable beings from unreasonable ones, for which for confirmation it is necessary to taste and feel to be sure.
Moreover, it is possible to learn about the world without getting out of a chair, being unable to walk, and subsequently obtain confirmation of hypotheses.
Those who are the first to make bold and new hypotheses (in any direction of human activity), they get glory, position in society, prosperity.
I have already stated my point of view.
I will only add that it is a question of learning the world, and not about who"gets glory, position in society, wealth. These are different things. Sometimes even the exact opposite.
I have already made my point.
I can only add that we are talking about learning about the world, and not about who"gets fame, position in society, and fortune". These are different things. Sometimes even the exact opposite.
I'm not arguing, I'm just making a point, in this case in the context of this video about evolution.
Yeah, knowledge of the world, and you say "no ironclad evidence".
Fame etc. is just a stimulus, or on our words a fitness function of evolution. the video says that the winner is the bacterium that eats most of all and therefore can divide itself before others, it is those same"fame, position in society, prosperity". the more complex the substance (system), the more complex its goals (fitness functions), but the principle remains the same.
But in general, why does a person need "fame, status and wealth"? it is the same: to create a competitive advantage for reproduction for oneself and one's descendants by fixing the alleles of the family name.
I'm not arguing, I'm just making a point, in this case in the context of this video about evolution.
Yeah, knowledge of the world, and you say "no ironclad evidence".
Fame etc. is just a stimulus, or on our words a fitness function of evolution. the video says that the winner is the bacterium that eats most of all and therefore can divide itself before others, it is those same"fame, position in society, prosperity". the more complex the substance (system), the more complex its goals (fitness functions), but the principle remains the same.
but by and large why does a person need " fame, status in society, prosperity"? it is the same: to create a competitive advantage for reproduction for themselves and their descendants by fixing the alleles of the family name.
It's not all so clear-cut: "Fame, fortune, position in society" can collapse in an instant. And such a collapse can happen for external reasons as well as internal ones. And the world will remain the same and completely indifferent to someone's"fame, position in society, wealth".
It's not all so straightforward. "Fame, social standing, wealth" can collapse in the blink of an eye. And this collapse can happen for external reasons as well as internal ones. And the world will remain the same and totally indifferent to someone's"fame, position in society, wealth".
Certainly not.
Every hour on planet Earth, three species disappear, simply because the species has nothing to eat.
the most resilient organisms are those that have signs of a collective "mind": ants, fungi, lichens and colonies of protozoa which form a single organism.
Thus, as long as the interests of individuals are not related to the interests of the species, the species is permanently endangered. Man as a species is one of them.
It is true that species acquiring a collective mind stop developing, but what the hell about this development? - the main thing is to survive? - maybe not the main thing, who knows....
the universe is 13 billion years old and will continue to be so for billions of years. species like us will disappear and appear in the future as many times as there are stars in the sky.
the simplest living organisms appeared on earth when it was 1 billion years old (according to some sources even earlier), there were several intelligent species on the planet before man, and on the scale of the universe, the appearance and disappearance of intelligent species is as frequent as the disappearance of species on earth (recall the bacterial colony analogy from the movie).
is certainly ambiguous.
Every hour on planet Earth, three species disappear, simply because the species has nothing to eat.
the most resilient organisms are those which have signs of a collective "mind": ants, fungi, lichens and colonies of protozoa which form a single organism.
Thus, as long as the interests of individuals are not related to the interests of the species, the species is permanently endangered. Man as a species is one of them.
It is true that species acquiring a collective mind stop developing, but what the hell about this development? - the main thing is to survive? - maybe not the main thing, who knows....
the universe is 13 billion years old and will continue to be so for billions of years. species like us will disappear and appear in the future as many times as there are stars in the sky.
Simple living organisms appeared on Earth when it was 1 billion years old (according to some sources even earlier), there were several intelligent species on the planet before humans did, and on the scale of the Universe the appearance and disappearance of intelligent species is not less frequent than the disappearance of species on Earth (recall the analogy of bacterial colonies from the film).
Myths abound.
For example, the myth"The Universe is 13 billion years old" sounds akin to the verdict"Rocks cannot fall from the sky, they have nowhere to be found!"(Academy of Sciences of Paris on meteorites, 1772)
And the myth"3 animal species disappear every hour on planet Earth" is of the "Greens a la Greta Thunberg" propaganda-horror-speak about "ozone holes", "global warming/cooling" and other "causes/justifications" for raising money on a global scale. (Count how many of them, animals, have gone extinct at this rate in the last 10 years? or 100 years? or 1000 years? and where did they come from in such numbers before going extinct?)
Myths abound.
For example, the myth"The universe is 13 billion years old" sounds akin to the verdict"Rocks cannot fall from the sky, they have nowhere to be found!"(Academy of Sciences of Paris on meteorites, 1772)
And the myth"3 animal species disappear every hour on planet Earth" is of the "Greens a la Greta Thunberg" propaganda-horror-speak about "ozone holes", "global warming/cooling" and other "causes/justifications" for raising money on a global scale. (Count how many of them, animals, have gone extinct at this rate in the last 10 years? or 100 years? or 1000 years? and where did they come from in such numbers before going extinct?)
Oleg, I am surprised at you. On the one hand an educated man, progressive methods you profess, and on the other - darkness...
The age of the Universe, among other methods, is determined by computer simulation (all known physical laws are put into the model and simulation is run). All known methods show one figure.
There are over 8 million species on Earth, only relatively large, complex species easily detected by simple observation. And if you count the microcosm of animals,....
Here's an excerpt from open sources:
The Earth is said to be inhabited by about a trillion different species of living things; just one gramme of soil alone can contain up to a million organisms. Life can be found not only on land or under water, but also deep underground and in the air. Yet only 0.001 per cent of the total has been described. One of the authors of the study, Jay T. Lennon (Jay T. Lennon) gives an example: according to him, about 10 million microbe species have been catalogued to date (10 000 of them have been grown in the laboratory), while there are 100 000 times more such microorganisms on the planet.
The conclusions of American biologists are borne out in practice: almost every day, scientists report the discovery of some new species of living creatures. And the list is not only growing due to representatives of the microcosm: new species of mammals or reptiles can still be discovered.
The list of recently extinct animals.
Get it?
And if you also count the periods of global extinctions.... There have been five mass extinctions in the history of our planet - the Ordovician-Silurian (450-443 million years ago), the Devonian (372 million years ago), the Permian (253-251 million years ago), the Triassic (208-200 million years ago) and the Cretaceous-Paleogene (65.5 million years ago). In one of these extinctions, more than 95% of all living things disappeared!!!
So, it is quite legitimate to say that an average of 3 species of living beings die out per hour. It's easy to calculate, 2.5 million creatures have gone extinct in the last 100 years.
But, my point is that not only do species go extinct, but in that new ones appear (see list of global extinctions)!
Now think about it, this enormous extinction/new species movement is only happening on the tiny peaceful planet Earth.... On the scale of the Universe, speciation of living organisms is unimaginable.
ZS. Above we were talking about carbon-based life as we know it.... However, it has been proved that life forms based on silicon are possible:
Scientists have succeeded for the first time in creating silicon-carbon bonds in a natural way, without the use of any chemical catalysts or other corrosive substances. The fact is that artificially created organosilicon bonds have been known for a long time and are used in a multitude of applications. However, it has now been proven that living cells are able to create such bonds themselves. "This is a great demonstration of how quickly nature can adapt to solve problems," says Francis Arnold. - All of nature's diversity can withstand a whole new chemistry if given new niches for it."
There are a great many Earth-type planets in the Universe, and many more where non-carbon life may well exist. Even on Earth there are many places with extreme conditions where there is no oxygen, no light, temperatures over 300 degrees and even there is life.
Oleg, I am surprised at you. On the one hand you are an educated man, professing progressive methods, but on the other hand you are dark and dense...
The age of the Universe, among other methods, is determined by computer simulation (all known physical laws are put into the model and simulation is run). All known methods show one figure.
There are over 8 million species on Earth, only relatively large, complex species easily detected by simple observation. And if you count the microcosm of animals,....
Here's an excerpt from open sources:
The Earth is said to be inhabited by about a trillion different species of living things; just one gramme of soil alone can contain up to a million organisms. Life can be found not only on land or under water, but also deep underground and in the air. Yet only 0.001 per cent of the total has been described. One of the authors of the study, Jay T. Lennon (Jay T. Lennon) gives an example: according to him, about 10 million microbe species have been catalogued to date (10 000 of them have been grown in the laboratory), while there are 100 000 times more such microorganisms on the planet.
The conclusions of American biologists are borne out in practice: almost every day, scientists report the discovery of some new species of living creatures. And the list is not only growing due to representatives of the microcosm: new species of mammals or reptiles can still be discovered.
The list of recently extinct animals.
Get it?
And if you also count the periods of global extinctions.... There have been five mass extinctions in the history of our planet - the Ordovician-Silurian (450-443 million years ago), the Devonian (372 million years ago), the Permian (253-251 million years ago), the Triassic (208-200 million years ago) and the Cretaceous-Paleogene (65.5 million years ago). In one of these extinctions, more than 95% of all living things disappeared!!!
So, it is quite legitimate to say that an average of 3 species of living beings die out per hour. It's easy to calculate, 2.5 million creatures have died out in the last 100 years.
But, my point is that not only do species go extinct, but in that new ones appear (see list of global extinctions)!
Now think about it, this enormous extinction/new species movement is only happening on the tiny peaceful planet Earth.... On the scale of the universe, speciation of living organisms is unimaginable.
In 1900, the British physicist Lord Kelvin declared, "There is nothing new in physics any more, all that can be discovered has already been discovered. What remains is more and more precise measurement of the old". Within three decades physics proved him seriously wrong: quantum mechanics and Einstein's theory of relativity were discovered and revolutionised science. Today no physicist would dare to claim that we know everything about the universe. On the contrary, each new discovery seems to open a Pandora's Box of even deeper questions about physics.
A model is just a model that can only account for known patterns. The results of the simulation do not go beyond the limits given by the model. Moreover, the results are conditioned by the model.
Gödel's incompleteness theorem: "The logical completeness (or incompleteness) of any system of axioms cannot be proved within that system. To prove or disprove it requires additional axioms (system amplification)".
I think it's time to end the philosophising.