5 ms·

While OP's words are his own and I'm not necessarily in agreement with them, it's worth pointing out that the circulatory system and organs and organelles which

While OP's words are his own and I'm not necessarily in agreement with them, it's worth pointing out that the circulatory system and organs and organelles which comprise them all have circular dependencies; it's not simply hierarchical based on relative size. A change in any part of the system can propagate both upward and downward.

eesmith 7y ago
The "OP" I'm quoting is you, at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20321707 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20321707 . How are you not in agreement with what you wrote? As to your 'circular dependencies', I'll again quote krastanov in the direct ancestor to this thread: > Unless you mean "gravity is important to make planets, and planets are where we have observed life", in which case you are stretching the meaning of this expression to a meaningless level. This 'circular dependencies' argument is as meaningless as saying that biological organelles are essential to the production of nuclear weapons - true, but not important enough that it's needed to understand the overall process. And there are many things like that. We can model weather numerically without modeling each and every molecule because that low-level interaction doesn't really affect fluid dynamics. Mean field theory can be apply to many complex systems. Yes, there can be chaotic behavior, even in Newtownian systems. But that's beside the point, which is they you have made statements which you seem to assert as fact which don't have any evidentiary support. You might as well muse about the effects of feline ESP on the weather.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  I think you’re confusing me with soulofmischief. In any case, I think I’ve clarified what I meant by my statement: organelles exist because gravity has caused heavy elements such as carbon and oxygen to be present in a dense enough concentration for life to occur.
  - soulofmischief 7y ago
    I understand where you're coming from. You're talking about stellar dispersion of elements-- which is true. Somehow this isn't relevant to forming life? I guess that's why none of the people shitting all over my musings in this thread are actually working in Physics and not just recounting what they read in a Pop Sci article. Dunning-Kruger effect, I guess.
    - krastanov 7y ago
      My disappointed comment at your musings (which I would characterize as misleading or at the very least nonsensically general truisms) started this regrettable thread. While I avoided commenting in it, this last comment of yours just continues the misleading pretentiousness: unlike what you assumed, some of the people that argue with you actually work in Physics, and we are annoyed because you conflate phenomena and then project and argue about meaningless semantics. As I said, I do share your excitement at the wonders of the universe, but I am trying and failing to see intellectual honesty or awareness in most of your follow-up comments.
- soulofmischief 7y ago
  You're confusing me with another poster, dawg. I said nothing about heavy elements. > 'circular dependencies' argument is as meaningless as saying that biological organelles are essential to the production of nuclear weapons Lol okay, or we could actually be mature about this and stay within the bounds of the discussion. Yes, it's meaningless when you stretch it that far; but I didn't. These systems are in direct contact with each other and depend on each others' designs to function. That has nothing to do with nuclear weaponry. > We can model weather numerically without modeling each and every molecule because that low-level interaction doesn't really affect fluid dynamics Yes, that's called classical mechanics. We wouldn't rely on QM to describe large-scale weather phenomenon which our current laws of classical thermodynamics encapsulate just fine. But these are all models, not reality itself; If we found out tomorrow a GUT which directly modeled quantum perturbations all the way to a storm in Kansas, with high accuracy, we would use that instead. So referencing our current applications of our current immature physical theories is pointless to this conversation. > You might as well muse about the effects of feline ESP on the weather. You just cannot have an open-minded scientific conversation can you? It just has to be a chance to show your intellectual superiority? Hardly a conducive attitude for progress and breaking the status quo. At one time Newton was considered nuts. At one time Einstein wasn't taken seriously. I'm not Newton or Einstein but neither of their bodies of work were developed having conversations with people like you. More to the point, your derision is ill-formed; Comparing quantum gravitational fluctuations to ESP is just insane. One of them is very much real and proven. We just don't have a GUT to tie it all together.

eesmith 7y ago

The "OP" I'm quoting is you, at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20321707 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20321707 . How are you not in agreement with what you wrote? As to your 'circular dependencies', I'll again quote krastanov in the direct ancestor to this thread: > Unless you mean "gravity is important to make planets, and planets are where we have observed life", in which case you are stretching the meaning of this expression to a meaningless level. This 'circular dependencies' argument is as meaningless as saying that biological organelles are essential to the production of nuclear weapons - true, but not important enough that it's needed to understand the overall process. And there are many things like that. We can model weather numerically without modeling each and every molecule because that low-level interaction doesn't really affect fluid dynamics. Mean field theory can be apply to many complex systems. Yes, there can be chaotic behavior, even in Newtownian systems. But that's beside the point, which is they you have made statements which you seem to assert as fact which don't have any evidentiary support. You might as well muse about the effects of feline ESP on the weather.

saagarjha 7y ago
I think you’re confusing me with soulofmischief. In any case, I think I’ve clarified what I meant by my statement: organelles exist because gravity has caused heavy elements such as carbon and oxygen to be present in a dense enough concentration for life to occur.
- soulofmischief 7y ago
  I understand where you're coming from. You're talking about stellar dispersion of elements-- which is true. Somehow this isn't relevant to forming life? I guess that's why none of the people shitting all over my musings in this thread are actually working in Physics and not just recounting what they read in a Pop Sci article. Dunning-Kruger effect, I guess.
  - krastanov 7y ago
    My disappointed comment at your musings (which I would characterize as misleading or at the very least nonsensically general truisms) started this regrettable thread. While I avoided commenting in it, this last comment of yours just continues the misleading pretentiousness: unlike what you assumed, some of the people that argue with you actually work in Physics, and we are annoyed because you conflate phenomena and then project and argue about meaningless semantics. As I said, I do share your excitement at the wonders of the universe, but I am trying and failing to see intellectual honesty or awareness in most of your follow-up comments.
soulofmischief 7y ago
You're confusing me with another poster, dawg. I said nothing about heavy elements. > 'circular dependencies' argument is as meaningless as saying that biological organelles are essential to the production of nuclear weapons Lol okay, or we could actually be mature about this and stay within the bounds of the discussion. Yes, it's meaningless when you stretch it that far; but I didn't. These systems are in direct contact with each other and depend on each others' designs to function. That has nothing to do with nuclear weaponry. > We can model weather numerically without modeling each and every molecule because that low-level interaction doesn't really affect fluid dynamics Yes, that's called classical mechanics. We wouldn't rely on QM to describe large-scale weather phenomenon which our current laws of classical thermodynamics encapsulate just fine. But these are all models, not reality itself; If we found out tomorrow a GUT which directly modeled quantum perturbations all the way to a storm in Kansas, with high accuracy, we would use that instead. So referencing our current applications of our current immature physical theories is pointless to this conversation. > You might as well muse about the effects of feline ESP on the weather. You just cannot have an open-minded scientific conversation can you? It just has to be a chance to show your intellectual superiority? Hardly a conducive attitude for progress and breaking the status quo. At one time Newton was considered nuts. At one time Einstein wasn't taken seriously. I'm not Newton or Einstein but neither of their bodies of work were developed having conversations with people like you. More to the point, your derision is ill-formed; Comparing quantum gravitational fluctuations to ESP is just insane. One of them is very much real and proven. We just don't have a GUT to tie it all together.