From: Walter Hicks (wallyshoes@mindspring.com)
Date: Mon Jul 28 2003 - 22:25:54 EDT
Let me just agree that we do not know very much -- and I have nothing else to say.
Walt
Richard McGough wrote:
> I had written:
>
> >> Interesting take on this question. It may well be that chemical reactions are entangled with the problem of measurement in QM. But if this were the case, then I suspect our conversation would quickly move into abstractions with no consensus solution, and prove rather unfruitful
> >
>
> To which Walt replied:
>
> >I see no reason why we should constrain discussion into areas where they would be "fruitful" -- if that does not conform to real physics.
> >
> >I would maintain that just about all chemical reactions fall into the the non-linear region of QM where LINEAR Hamiltonian representations do not apply --- even in principle!.
> >
>
> The foundation of Quantum Physics *assumes* a linear hamilitonian representation is possible. Of course, this could be false, but that would simply mean that QM is an incomplete theory. Are you asserting that we need to toss out Schroedinger's equation? If so, then I must assert that subsequent conversation would definitely be over the heads of most people on this list. And that would be unfruitful in my book.
>
> Also, could you please define what you mean by the "non-linear region of Quantum Mechanics?"
>
> I had written:
>
> >> I must admit that I don't really know if anyone has worked out the QM equations describing the actual process of going from H + H + O to H2O. I do know that we can analyse the resultant molecule and show it is a lower enegry configuration and so from mere energetical calculations assert that the process would occur, but I don't know if the actual time evolution with the appropriate hamiltonian has ever been solved. But the real point to me is that we do have an abstract formulation = exp(-iHt) that describes the time evolution, so in principle it is solvable. And as I stated to Glen, that is what is important to the argument, not whether we can actually solve the equation or even write the exact equation, but if the equation exists in principle.
>
> To which Walt replied:
>
> >Again!, I would maintain that just about all chemical reactions fall into the the non-linear region of QM where LINEAR Hamiltonian representations do apply --- even in principle!.
>
> So? What does this have to do with my point, which is that we can predict the formation of H2O through energetical considerations? We still have nothing like this for abiogenesis. Does not my point stand?
>
> <snip>
>
> I had written:
>
> >> Of course DNA is chemical. But that doesn't mean the whole DNA coding, reading, and replicating machine is the product of mere chemical evolution. Think again of your car. Everything going on in the engine is describable by exact mathematical equations, but those equations did not describe the process which resulted in the existence of the engine, unless you believe the humans who designed it to be fully describable by QM.
>
> To which Walt responded:
>
> >
> >I have a lot of trouble with that analogy.
> >
> >Think about the earth. If you just did an analysis of the probability of the occurrence of such an object, you would give it an impossibility factor of 1.0. It is only because we have become scientifically wiser in the last few hundred years that we now "know better".
>
> How does this relate to my analogy? I said nothing about calculating probabilities. My argument is that we have equations and lots of physical understanding that lets us see how chemical evolution occurs. We don't have anything like this for the mechanism of abiogensis and animal evolution.
>
> >
> >Since DNA really is just a chemical, then we may just not know the chemical rules by which it can happen.
> >
>
> Sure DNA is "just a chemical" - who cares? DNA by itself is not alive. Its just the software that codes for the production of new living cells through the existing living cells. You have missed the essence of my argument. The fact that we understand the chemistry that allows DNA to exist does not necessarily tell us anything about the process that brought "the whole DNA coding, reading, and replicating machine" into existence. This was the point of my analogy above.
>
> >So what do we know? -- actually not much.
>
> I'm right with you on this one Walt. What do we know? Not much indeed!
>
> Richard Amiel McGough
> Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at http://www.BibleWheel.com
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jul 28 2003 - 22:34:28 EDT