Tuesday 24th of December 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

the trinity...

mother cockroach

This is the last chapter of "The Age of Deceit" by Gus Leonisky. This is by no mean the end of the age of deceit on planet earth. 

It was rather amusing as it was a complete mass of epigrams, with occasional whiffs of grotesque melodrama and drivelling sentiment. The queerest mixture! Mr Tree is a wicked Lord, staying at a country house, who has made up his mind to bugger one of the other guests — a handsome young man of twenty. The handsome young man is delighted; when his mother enters, sees his Lordship and recognises him as having copulated with her twenty years before, the result of which was — the hansome young man ... It seems an odd plot, doesn't it?

This was written by Lytton Strachey to explain how baffling he found Oscar Wilde's A Woman of No Importance.

 

THE TRINITY (part one)

 

The trinity is the singular flexible assemblage of time, energy and space. The three are relatively indivisible and combine in various ways into a chaotic complex structure we call the universe. The universe of which we are part of is nearly 14 billion years old (between 13.73 and 13.82) and has no morality attached to it. 
The universe is expanding, with an accelerating momentum. The study of the Cosmic Microwave Background gives a reasonably accurate picture of when the universe stopped being opaque as photons became free from interference from the "hot" plasma some 390.000 "years" after the big bang. 

"These atoms could no longer absorb the thermal radiation, and so the universe became transparent instead of being an opaque fog.[4] Cosmologists refer to the time period when neutral atoms first formed as the recombination epoch, and the event shortly afterwards when photons started to travel freely through space rather than constantly being scattered by electrons and protons in plasma is referred to as photon decoupling. The photons that existed at the time of photon decoupling have been propagating ever since, though growing fainter and less energetic, since the expansion of space causes their wavelength to increase over time (and wavelength is inversely proportional to energy according to Planck's relation). This is the source of the alternative term relic radiation. The surface of last scattering refers to the set of points in space at the right distance from us so that we are now receiving photons originally emitted from those points at the time of photon decoupling."

 


I'd like to thank the teams who worked on the Hubble telescope that provided a greater precision of this knowledge. I'd like to thank the teams of scientists working on the dark energy conundrum. Dark energy here does NOT mean evil stuff, but a relationship between time, energy and space that we have not understood so far and which we cannot see with our naked eyes nor with our present instrumentation. Dark energy is stuff which in the time/energy/space relationship seems to develop more repulsion than attraction, presently expanding the universe contrarily to what we could expect in regard to what we see. 

There is no morality in the trinity assemblage nor in the accelerating expansion of the universe. 

It has been calculated — though not observed — that this trinity of time/energy/space could combine in a variety of unseen other ways which we call multiverses. 

I was disappointed with the special TV programme on science fiction shown on SBS recently. It was mostly a borderline venture talking with actors and what it meant for them to play characters in the science fiction movies. Slightly below par. For me, one of the most fascinating science fiction movies ever made was "Forbidden Planet". The TV special did not seem to go there. It plodded with the weirdo plots of Star Trek, rather than with the strong psychological issues of imagined sciences. The essence of Forbidden Planet is the exploration of the dark corners of our own mind, where destructive forces can lurk in our subconscious. I may have turned the TV off too soon, but I was getting annoyed. There was no mention of Red Dwarf, nor of Blake Seven, all valid science-fiction in their sub-genre of psychological drama and comedy. The Dr Who saga could do more than easily replace story of the chosen people traipsing the deserts in search of the promised land, under the guidance of Godon, the creator guy from the bible.

Anyway, in real sciences, Einstein expressed the relative universe as E = MC2. In this regard M (mass) is to be seen as a product of time/space/energy relationship, also recently discovered (2013) as the Higgs boson, itself formulated in the 1960s.

Time, energy and space relationships can be negative or positive, can be fluid, can be strong or weak, can have various precise values that we compare and assess — some remarkably seen in such items as stars populating the cosmos, some unseen such as dark matter and dark energy — and from such, the relationships can construct into stuff with various observable/calculable precise interactions — from matter, particles, parts of particles and energy transfers. And all this is measurable in quantum delineation. We know and study these relationships, in interpreted comparative modelling and also because most elementary particle relationships are stable at some energy levels, but can become unstable at high energy levels.

There is no morality attached.

Now we should consider the values of energy. Energy manifests in various guises. We should ask the question: is energy a single entity with various properties in regard to time and space or is energy differentiated separate entities with these various properties? We know the various guises:

Gravity, the weak force, the strong electromagnetic force and the various particles — some of which can exist longer than others, while some are only transitional particles with defined qualities — are all part of the combination of this chaos complicated quantum assemblage. 

There is no morality in these complex and varied chaotic relationships that apparently seem to settle well in specific bracketed levels at these stable but changing/exchanging energies.
As human, we have thus recently found clever ways to quantify and qualify many of these relationships in the assemblage — from high unstable energy levels, black holes, to the lower middle levels and to the lowest temperatures, including the absolute zero.  

There is no morality in our scientific survey of these energy level, nor in our ability to observe. 

The concept of fields is to be introduced here, as the localised spaces in which energy and particles interact by motion and by static position, in which energy and particles are the same.

At this stage it would be important to note that as a chaotic system becomes more complex, there are increasing chances — possibly exponential — of the creation of specific construct within the chaotic system — including the development of life. That is too say that without complexity, the universe would still be a uniformed expanding unit of decreasing energy. Some of the complexities are "flaws" — or simply expressed, are random variations of density in the make up of the universe which change the density of attraction, leading to accumulation of matter through gravity (energy of attraction). In the past I have expressed that gravity is "energy in negative time, but expressed to the square in relation to energy, negative time becomes a reality in our observable universe". This is only a theory. 

It is thus important to know that this chaos, despite the random imponderables, will from time to time appear highly organised. At this level of appreciation, I find that the time, energy and space trinity quite easy to understand in achieving a simple construct we call LIFE in the solar system. Nothing extraordinary about this organisation of chaos.

That we can appreciate this life, is far more than a miracle. It's a sufficient structured chaotic development but not exclusive, nor a necessary one. There is no necessity in the development of life nor in our "understanding/misunderstanding of it. Whether life exists in the universe or not, it is worth less than no brass-razoo. 

Our appreciation of life is a small part of this unnecessary system which we scientifically understand more and more, though many people try to be ignorant of this understanding as it demands a broadening of the scientific mind and the necessary elimination of the godly illusions. 

We are not fallen angels. God does not exist. The original sin is an idiocy beyond comprehension. 

That these imaginary stories still influence our daily lives is ludicrous and impedes our knowledge-seeking. The development of morality from such stories — themselves being misunderstanding of the structured naturally evolved deceit — impedes our judgement. But does it matter? It matters to the extend that some idiot will go to war and kill other people to impose ludicrousness and their envisioned morality upon other people, in the name of a godly fart. Idiots. The processes are nothing more than chaos in action. 

We know about elementary atoms and their particular composition from electrons to quarks. We know a lot about isotopes and energies contained within atoms. We know about atom assemblage in chemical structures.

We know about transfer of energy through photons. Daily, we can see billions of photons per second, otherwise we would be blind. The energy transfer from photons is directly related to their wavelength. Thus we're able to see various colours of the "visible light spectrum", while our instruments can deal with shorter wavelengths — some of which we use in wifi, microwave ovens and x-rays. Heat is a long wave-energy from photons. The universe's heat from the original big bang is now just a bit below 3 K (around minus 270 degrees C or 3 degrees above absolute zero).

Most of the basic elements of matter are formed in stars from the union of electrons and protons, mostly from constructed hydrogen after big bang, while the heavier elements are formed in shorter lived "super-heavy"-stars. When these explode, the elements become part of the galaxy (group of billions stars) to recombine in time with original hydrogen and other gases to form solar systems, as these systems "cool off". There are billion billions of solar systems in the universe. Timing of such lengthy processes is measurable.

Planet earth was formed around 4.6 billion years ago in a corner of the universe we call the solar system, in which the level of energy — atoms, chemical, temperature in entropy, but, not being fully isolated system — decreases towards the lowest level possible, accidentally created a slow evolving complexity on a temporary platform in which particular assemblages of atoms led to what we call life. Eventually, a small corner of the universe became existentially able to observe itself. 

There is no morality in this. There is NO INTELLIGENT DESIGNER experimenting with these processes. An intelligent designer/creator would have gone "poof" with a magic wand, while avoiding uncertainty, errors, mistakes and accidental construct. The process is full of uncertainty, errors and accidental constructs in evolution. THERE IS NO INTELLIGENT DESIGNER. Nor would have this "intelligent designer" invented a morality in which we need to prostrate ourselves to admire His (he is a male in most stories) love, while fearing his wrath and eternal vengeance. THIS DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE.

Let me repeat: At this stage, it is important to note that as a chaotic system becomes more complex in favourable sufficient environments, there are increasing chances — possibly exponential — of the creation of specific construct within the chaotic system — including the development of life. NO INTENT.

It is highly likely that there are billions of such "Earthly corners" in the universe. Though the factors inducing life are complex, there is no exclusivity in the occurrence of the combining factors of this complexity. Aliens do exist. Other life-forms exist in the universe. 

Unfortunately, the distances in cosmic time/space are too great to allow simultaneous communications between. One "light year" is 9.4605284 × 10 (12) kilometres or 9,460,528,400,000 kilometres (nearly 10 trillion kilometres). The universe should be more than 13 billion light years in all direction from its centre. It's a long long way to walk to the edge, but we can measure the red shift from back then. We still hope to find "worm holes" or short cuts in this set up.

There is no morality in this observation.

End of part one
(Gus' picture at top: a mother European cockroach)

 

 

the trinity (2)

Part two

 

On planet Earth, the evolution of chemical assemblage from early amino-acids to the present, are complex and are specifically related, like they would be — billions of time in the universe — due to the abundance of various stabilised elements, mostly carbon, hydrogen and oxygen and to their association with ionised water through salts (including sodium chloride), to other chemicals present in the localised environment and to the temperature of the said environment. Temperature is also a function of the trinity (space, energy, time) and has no morality value.

There is no morality in these combining complexities. 

The odds of such complicated assemblages occurring and developing into "life" are actually far far better than me winning lotto. And I nearly did once. And no god has anything to do with this. God is an invention of extrapolated merchandising from the natural evolved individual "deceit" which is used to capture other individuals' proteins (cash) in a simple process of "supply and demand".

Religion most likely started as a simpleton misunderstanding of the world. Then became a powerful tool to rule over people. Now religions are fully-fledged frauds. We know better. Sure there are idiots everywhere. We have the godless idiot with his nuclear bomb and the god-addicted idiot who is rebuilding a big boat to show Noah did build a big boat because god had decided to kill off all humans except this Noah character and his family. So we all are descended from Noah... Makes sense? Idiots.  

Here I'd like to thank my friends, the creationists, who by trying to debunk the theories of early complexities, may explain these complexities better than scientists themselves. The only thing we need to remove from the creationists' views is the concept of spontaneousness (the magical "poof") which they use to dismiss proper sciences — to plonk a god with an intent of love, rage and vengeance, while shortening reality into an impossible timeframe.  

These are erroneous interpretations of the nature of things, by ignoramus people without investigative powers, but a need to control others for profit (capture of others' goods) — mostly because they are subconsciously AFRAID of being who they are, whom we are, limited chemical reactions in a complexed evolutionary system. And they have to explain pain, suffering and contentment with magic rather than universal mechanics of time/energy/space.

Spontaneousness does not exist in this universe. Nothing is "spontaneous". Whatever has been spontaneous in appearance has been affected by time, energy and spacial position of both time and energy — including the big bang. 

All processes are derivative of time, space and energy, with no morality in them. The relationships of processes are existential. We also know that such a period-three combo is chaotic, yet can also become harmonic accidentally.
Back on planet earth, chemical complexities, emerging from enzymes and amino-acids, led to specific chemical reactions, with the development of more complex atomic association with a unique "memory" of assemblage (including atomic valence) within the structure of the chemicals in regard to the environment (energy level, space and time — of the time, as early as of 4 billion year ago). 

This is where we should quote Kauffman, as the best-known scientist, for arguing that the complexity of biological systems and organisms might result as much from self-organization and far-from-equilibrium dynamics as from Darwinian natural selection (See Origins of Order, 1993). Kauffman has had his critics in both science and in creationism, yet his theory is quite sane — especially compared to that of a god creating some poor creatures for His (god being a male) own self-satisfaction/adulation/and/or savage eternal damnation — a concept which is still completely ridiculous.

Gus would propose that basic precise chemical associations exist in simple formats, such as when oxygen combines with hydrogen to form water. All the molecules of water are the same structure, the same orientation of atoms. What differ sometimes is that some atoms of carbon and oxygen can be isotopes (same atomic number with a different number of neutrons). Here we have to consider chaos as a means to the "creation" of life. We know the unpredictiblity of chaos but we also know that some chaotic processes will go through specific arrangements (harmonised). 

In more complex molecules, we know that the same product can have different molecular spacial arrangements. 
This is where people who manufacture delicately precise chemical products are better at it than others. For example pork insulin and synthetic insulin have the same molecular structure, yet they can carry a slightly varied spacial arrangement, leading to various reactivity and allergies of synthetic insulin in some diabetic patients. Spacial arrangement is very important here, and possibly variation in spacial arrangements of "same" molecules had an influence in the original soup of life. Chirality is also an essential component of life.

Over a short billion years, the complexity and associations twisted molecules into particular assemblages. the likelihood of similar molecules forming in the ionised chemical soup was strong. Atomic bonding is quite precise in attraction and rejection, processes which can be influenced by catalytic or other bonding arrangements. Some complex molecules could have structured as the same molecule, in a mirrored spacial arrangement. 

The likelihood of such mirror-imaged molecules pairing or combining within certain proximity is strong. Such molecules would actually have formed some specific intermediate bonds and bridges. And the same molecular constructs would have happened in the billion-billion, all without inducing the self-duplicating effect (life). 

A Chiral molecule has a mirror image that cannot line up with it perfectly — the mirror images are non superimposable. we call the mirror images, enantiomers.

A chiral molecule and its enantiomer have the same chemical and physical properties (boiling point, melting point, polarity, density etc...). It turns out that many of our biological molecules such as our DNA, amino acids and sugars, are chiral molecules.

Our hands seem to serve the same purpose but most people are only able to use one of their hands to write. Similarily this is true with chiral biological molecules and interactions. Just like your left hand will not fit properly in your right glove, one of the enantiomers of a molecule may not work the same way in your body. 

 

The study of mirror image of particles in quantum mechanics is still in infancy though already quite a powerful concept and, of course, has no morality involved with it. Even there, we know of the existence of anti-particles, including some particles that are their own anti-particles. 


There is a big chance that at some stage, a small — or large — but significant change in environmental factors, not sudden, but rapid, INCLUDING catalytic influences would have broken some of most tenuous chemical bonds of complex molecules. The broken bonds would have been "searching" for — found by accidental encounter of atomic valence — replacement bits to the loss. Some of the bits would exist as other broken molecules that would be re-bonding in time to other bits. Eventually incremental patterns of bonding and de-bonding would have emerged. All possibilities related to the specific valence of atoms in a changing ionised energised environment.

Some chemicals did not continue the process, while some chemicals developed a reactive habit of splitting and recombining in the soup. Time-frames of bonding and de-bonding is also a major key. We know that some chemical reactions are "slow" while others are fast (explosion), yet the timing is relative — and, at no time, is such timing "spontaneous". Temperature is also a strong influence on the timing of chemical activity. Anyone who has worked in chemistry would know this. Any budding Black-and-White photographer would know that by warming the bath of the developer and the fixer, one can change the speed AND the result of the process. 

Although there is a method and pattern developing in the processes of life, there is no morality, nor intent. And it took a long long long time...

the trinity (3)

part three

 

With the exception of ribozymes, nucleic acid molecules within cells primarily serve as storage of genetic information due to its ability to form complementary base pairs, which allows for high-fidelity copying and transfer of genetic information. In contrast, nucleic acid molecules are more limited in their catalytic ability, in comparison to protein enzymes, to just three types of interactions: hydrogen bonding, pi stacking, and metal-ion coordination. This is due to the limited number of functional groups of the nucleic acid monomers: while proteins are built from up to twenty different amino acids with various functional groups, nucleic acids are built from just four chemically similar nucleobases. In addition, DNA lacks the 2'-hydroxyl group found in RNA which limits the catalytic competency of deoxyribozymes even in comparison to ribozymes.


Over a short billion years, molecules would have combined first in chaotic ways contrarily to what has been asserted by creationists and intelligent designer fantasists, "that large numbers of interacting components spontaneously organise themselves into ordered patterns". 

The code of life was accidentally inventing itself by trial and error and accidental randomness — which still exists today in the continuum of duplication for the last 4 billion years. 

The size of individuals has not grown much, though assemblages of individual chemical developed stronger traits of self-protection for the process. The biggest of cells are still microscopic. The DNA of individual cells control the "life" of complex organisms. 

There is no morality in the DNA code of life, just an existential bonding and de-bonding process with incremental growth and termination (in single cells and in complex assemblage of cells).

Though there could be billions billion patterns developing, only A FEW would acquire the repeat duplicating ability of early "life". Splitting and binding of chemical DNA was for about two billion years what sustain this new chemical duplication with more complexity brought in by changing environmental factors, some induced by the DNA itself, releasing more oxygen into the atmosphere. But the complexities have billion more chances to develop into life, than a big bearded narcissistic bloke with a trowel building a universe with a few bricks. 

One becomes two becomes four becomes 16 becomes 256... The availability of "failed" complex molecules " could be plundered by others now in duplicating mode, could and would have also enhanced an early format of self-duplicating differentiation. 

There is nothing spontaneous in the trinity. This is where the creationists are damning themselves because they simplify the process of such complexed changes, into a spontaneity or a god. Time does not allow spontaneity. Failure? Sure. Complexity can lead to failure and the time overlap of various chemical structure duplication ends up accidentally protecting the system from annihilation and overload. There is no intent. 

There is no morality in time. There is no intent. Survival of the duplicating chemical is similar to that of complex polymers beyond polymers. Elasticity of molecules is also a very important factor. Without inbuilt molecular elasticity there is no life possible. Elastomers are a crude form of such.

Complex nucleic acids, such as enzymes can thus duplicate WITH NO INTENT. Over one billion years, the complexity and association twist the molecules into a particular assemblage. The likelihood of similar molecules forming in the same ionised chemical soup is strong.

It is likely that several molecules were combining to give the duplicative ability to early "enzymes". In the 1960s I used to loose my socks to "NEW" washing power "with enzymes" for leaving my socks too long in the wash-basin. "The enzymes bred like rabbits" destroying the socks in the process. Washing powders with enzymes were soon removed from supermarket shelves. Enzymes acted a bit like the Pacman of the famous early electronic game (1980). Gnaw, gnaw, gnaw...

The chemical memory led to basic self-duplication of molecules which was possible, due to the environmental factor being conducive to sustainability and basic adaptability within limits. The availability or rarity of some basic elements for the construction of the duplication led to some elements being replaced by equivalents, also leading to a change in the next generation of some duplicated chemicals. The small changes created a variety of duplicating chemicals that soon became fully speciated. The list of bio-chemicals is long. Some of these bio-chemicals can reproduce, some are in the "half way house". Some are more mineral than bio, but I would suggest here that the more elastic complex molecules the best duplicating performers they could be.

The reproducing individuality had to be fed with chemicals and basic elements in order to continue. 

The environment provided but also changed. Some chemicals became more numerous than others due to the reactivity with the developing duplicating molecules. All these chemical transforms were happening in the water — the seas which would have had warm temperature and would have been ionised. 

A simple important step came when some individuals of these small beasts acquired the chemicals necessary for survival from other beasts — in a steal of pre-existing structure... This led to an acceleration of evolutionary steps. This system is simple. These days, we call it food. 

Many species do "steal" bio-structures. Viruses steal our "food" reserves from our own cells to duplicate. They make us sick, but this is not the "purpose" of viruses. Their genetic make-up is to duplicate and exist beyond "individual" death due to change while multiplying. Error and variation in duplication do happen. 

We know that basic individual cells can exist independently in specific environment, in which water is present. The species individuals multiply by spitting and all have a time limit of existence. The species lives on, the individuals die. There is no morality in this process.

(More to come)

the trinity (4)

part 4

 

 

Beyond this time limit of chemical reaction, DNA memory eventually developed a survival strategy for the chemical assemblage in change, including protection of the assemblage by defence, while attack was/is the strategy to acquire "food". These steps are quite simple, even at mono-cellular level which to say the least are far more complexed than the original RNA/DNA strands. 

Without acquiring chemicals from the environment, many small energised chemicals could not survive, nor duplicate. But some of the new molecules beat time of essential chemical unavailability by "storing" a certain amount of these essential chemicals within a specific limit, which eventually would have self-protection. This became the complex cell of the algae beyond the simple virus-like DNA strand loose in the soup. Beyond this, some association of chemical strands eventually led to the basic protozoa. ALL animals are basically made of protozoa-like cells that eventually developed specialisation within the assemblage. This lead us to have "fat" cells.

Such survival strategy — including the need to envelop the food needed for duplication, developed beyond basic duplication. From simple DNA strands, can the cell with its out-layer and inside, provide the necessary environment to "survive" (duplicate) when the outer greater environment is not suitable, to a length of timeframe. Time and change of the environment made the new molecules react to be able to duplicate. It is likely that many "developments" of living molecules did not survive.

Out there there are still basic mono-cellular life structure that still feed from the basic elements found in the environment. Life now is basically a system of genetical protein robbery through complex processes.

This life strategy, getting more and more complex, led to the diversification over 3.5 billion years, of speciation, through duplication and eradication. Death, or cessation of the chemical reactions, is part of the so-far necessary accidental change which became life, in which changes from duplication, activity and termination is necessary for life to continue to happen in this framework. Metabolism is a series of chemical process that creates many chemical exchanges of "supply and demand" in the complexity of life.

Metabolites are the intermediates and products of metabolism. The term metabolite is usually restricted to small molecules. Metabolites have various functions, including fuel, structure, signaling, stimulatory and inhibitory effects on enzymes, catalytic activity of their own (usually as a cofactor to an enzyme), defense, and interactions with other organisms (e.g. pigments, odorants, and pheromones). A primary metabolite is directly involved in normal "growth", development, and reproduction. Ethylene is an example of a primary metabolite produced in large-scale by industrial microbiology. A secondary metabolite is not directly involved in those processes, but usually has an important ecological function. Examples include antibiotics and pigments such as resins and terpenes etc. Some antibiotics use primary metabolites as precursors, such as actinomycin which is created from the primary metabolite, tryptophan. There are also examples of sugars that are metabolites, and example of this would be fructose or glucose in the metabolic pathways.


There is no morality in these processes. They only follow various reactive combinations due to time, concentration factors and original construct of cells. We know that alcohol (ethylene, methylene compounds) affect or body in many ways. Drugs are chemicals that will affect our "consciousness" amongst other influence on the body in general. Drugs can lower or eliminate our memory inhibitors. Most of our memory inhibitors have been acquired as complex signatures of information designed to preserve our self in the environment. The unruly/wanton elimination of inhibitors can lead to catastrophic consequences of behaviour (drunkeness, torpor, anger, violence against others, suicide).

Back in the original soup, encounters of cells also led to new assemblages, concurrently sharing a spacial arrangement like the mitochondria being a secondary set of living instructor molecules within the "food reserve" and symbiosis of same/different speciated cellular structures that survive better in association. This is quite remarkable that all species on earth, from the elephant to the carrot, are made of similar small cellular blocks that have developed speciated purpose within the greater association. 

Many cells do not have mitochondria. The mitochondrion, an organelle that helps produce energy for the cell, is only found in eukaryotes, organisms with relatively large, complex cells. These organisms contrast with prokaryotes, which lack membrane-bound organelles like mitochondria. Eukaryotes include everything from one-celled paramecium to plants, fungi and animals. In short, many cells have mitochondria and many don't, and the difference is important.

It might have taken about one billion year of change/adaptation from the original enzymes and amino acids to reach the level of blue-green algae, which show the complexity of basic cells and of grouping associations. It is likely that the first amino acids and enzymes came early in the formation of the planet as we know some of these blue-green algae existed about 3.5 billion years ago. 

The clue of the blue green/green algae, which still exist today in the primary reactivity to photon energy which we call light. Though some of the earlier soup of enzymes and amino acids may have formed in the depth of the oceans, still quite warm despite the planet loosing heat into the deep space, the next step (not spontaneous) was to develop a chemical relationship with light. This chemical relationship which we call photosynthesis is very complex though the simple resultant is the process absorbs CO2 and produces O2. 

This process on a planetary scale changed the environmental conditions of the atmosphere to the development of oxygen absorbing cellular organisms in adaptation. Processes such as these may take millions of years to happen — or just a few years as we know, many bacteria and viruses adapt rather too quickly to our fighting methods against their reproduction. 

There is no morality in all these processes.

 

the trinity (final)...

 

The universe is far too complex and has far too many contradictions to have been wilfully designed.  
Only a chaotic trinity of time, energy and space erratic assemblage can give the closest interpretation of what happened and is. There is no morality in the interactions and integrations of this trinity. There is no "intelligent design". 

Sensors, memory, interpretations of environmental factors and purposezation are accidental products of evolution in "living" things, in reaction to a changing environment in which other living things play a part in aggressiveness and in receptivity. The complexity of atomic bondage between electron, protons, neutrons lead to the complexities in these reactivities of life.  

Aggressiveness and receptivity are the only two purposes that manipulate the survival of life. Their indicators of success or failure are pain (including termination — ie death) and contentment.  There is no moralisation in aggressiveness and receptivity. Ar some stage of evolution, the benefit of management of aggressiveness and receptivity becomes paramount for improved survival. There is no meaning nor morality attached to survival.

I would like to thank all the biologists, all the geneticists and all the scientists in general who have helped understand — rather than decide upon a simplistic godly playground decree — what makes life so much of a developing complexed conundrum. 

And the essential word to define life here is: complexity within complexity within complexity.

We are made of billions billions cells that each perform tasks and live to replace themselves via complex mechanisms, including stem cells, which involve an immense array of complexed chemicals. There is no morality in the assemblage, only an acquired ability to maximise survival of the system, in which aggressiveness and receptivity are essential on the fabric of the DNA..

Cells within tissues and organs must be anchored to one another and attached to components of the extracellular matrix. Cells have developed several types of junctional complexes to serve these functions, and in each case, anchoring proteins extend through the plasma membrane to link cytoskeletal proteins in one cell to cytoskeletal proteins in neighboring cells as well as to proteins in the extracellular matrix .

 

Three types of anchoring junctions are observed, and differ from one another in the cytoskeletal protein anchor as well as the transmembrane linker protein that extends through the membrane.

 

Each of your cells has a set of 'identity tags' on its surface, which mark it out as part of your body and no one else's. Some are only found on cells from the same tissue or organ. These identity tag molecules are called antigens. Your set of antigens is unique, unless you have an identical twin. Your immune system recognises invading germs because they have unfamiliar antigens on their surfaces.

 

In immunology, TCR or BCR or its secreted form antibody. In simpler terms, an antigen is any substance that causes an immune system to produce antibodies against it. Each antibody is specifically selected after binding to a certain antigen because of random somatic diversification in the antibody complementarity determining regions

 

In summary an antigen is a molecule that binds to Ag-specific receptors, but cannot induce an immune response in the body by itself. The term originally described a structural molecule that binds specifically to an antibody. It expanded to refer to any molecule or a linear molecular fragment that can be recognized by highly variable antigen receptors (B-cell receptor or T-cell receptor) of the adaptive immune system.

 

The antigen may originate from within the body ("self-antigen") or from the external environment ("non-self"). The immune system usually does not react to self-antigens under normal homeostatic conditions due to negative selection of T cells in the thymus and is supposed to identify and attack only "non-self" invaders from the outside world or modified/harmful substances present in the body under distressed conditions.

 

Antigen presenting cells present antigens in the form of peptides on histocompatibility molecules. The T cells of the adaptive immune system recognize the antigens. Depending on the antigen and the type of the histocompatibility molecule, different types of T cells activate. For T-Cell Receptor (TCR) recognition, the peptide must be processed into small fragments inside the cell and presented by a major histocompatibility complex (MHC). The antigen cannot elicit the immune response without the help of an Immunologic adjuvant. Similarly, the adjuvant component of vaccines plays an essential role in the activation of the innate immune system.

 

All these proteins, DNA and enzymes assemblage develop a memory of self- and of the assemblage, through the original DNA development. DNA is a chemical memory with potential to duplicate and variegate through its derivative complexity about 50 to 70 times, though each times it looses integrity. DNA is like a derivative to the 50th degree. Eventually all derivatives to the nth degree trend towards zero. Death. 

 

Accidental strategies of duplication and reproduction became more refined through the process itself, in which survival of some processes became the dictate of the processes, in which templates of duplication became firmly entrenched. Life as we know it today, still rely on the duplication of the DNA molecule. Life is about the time-framed sustainability of the DNA molecule in which ever speciated format in relation to specific environments.   

The survival strategies of life are totally irrelevant to the rest of the universe, though changes in the close environment of the settings can make or break life. Volcanoes, atmospheric gaseous mix can change the parameters of survival. 

Though the energies of life have thus become semi-autonomous they are still related to the energies of atoms at that specific bracketed level of temperature, we see on planet earth. 

The universe cannot see us though we can see and gauge the universe. We have developed a sophisticated understanding of these processes that are far removed from the simplistic religious moralist tales. In the same way as the dinosaurs became instinct, the religious thought is becoming irrelevant to the survival of the species. Irrelevant to life.

At this level, it is not to know why, but WHAT can we achieve with this accidentally acquired relative position. 
How we can achieve maximum relative best survival in this system. Here I must admit, the scientific thought can be far more frightening than the simplistic concept of god and hell. 
At least, the concept of Hell brings us an "eternity" of pain, tears and sorrows, while the scientific thought only brings us oblivion. But oblivion is the reality of all individual organised cells in the reactive time-frame of life. Oblivion is not the purpose of life, but it is a construct of its complexity. And without oblivion, there is no life. 

With religion, there is only simplistic illusion of eternity. Life does not work like this. 

Life is harsh and beautifully limited for individual members. Life itself is limited to the settings of this corner of the universe in which another 5 billion years is the only time left the sun will shine without exploding. We know that. We should know that. We've got time on our hands to imagine an escape from this future, though we might destroy the joint before this spacial limit — out of religious idiocy and of scientific mismanagement.

Except for a massive bolide from space and/or some huge volcanic erruption, we are now in charge of our own purpose, whichever we choose. Let's not brawl about it.

Let's be brave and peaceful. We can. In the end it does not matter — but we can be joyful about it.

Life works.


Gus Leonisky
The Age of Deceit

 

congratulations...

In 2005, Simmons was awarded the Australian Academy of Science Pawsey Medal [13] In 2006, she became one of the youngest researchers to be elected a fellow of the Australian Academy of Science.[14] In 2011, Simmons was named NSW Scientist of the Year by the NSW Government Office of the Chief Scientist.[15] In 2014, she was elected a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.[16] In 2015, Michelle was awarded the Thomas Ranken Lyle Medal, and was the winner of the Eureka Prize for Leadership in Science. She was named the L'Oréal-UNESCO Awards for Women in ScienceAsia-Pacific Laureate in 2017[17] and was subsequently profiled in a short documentary on France24 TV.[18] She was named Australian of the Year in 2018 for her work in quantum physics.[19]

 

Read more:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Simmons

 

See also:

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/australian-of-the-year-2018-award-winners-an...

 

About time...

take care...

Thus, as Loegstrup puts it, "When something as unconditional as an expression of life comes from the universe, the thought springs to mind that humankind is not irrelevant to the universe." That is, given that life for us would be impossible without the sovereign expressions of life being operative in the world, this suggests that the universe is not indifferent to us but has been created in such a way as to make this life possible.

Nonetheless, the expression of life does not rest on or require a religious commitment to creation to ground its normativity as such; this is taken for granted in Loegstrup's account, because what leads us to the idea of creation is the hospitality of the universe to this normativity, for otherwise it might seem too incredible for it to be ordered along these lines, as a world in which these goods are realized. It is thus not God's act of creation that makes the sovereign expressions of life good at an axiological or normative level, but that he created the universe is nonetheless "suggested" by them insofar as we live in a universe in which they can be fulfilled and upheld.

If we take this approach, we can then see how Loegstrup can hold that ethics may well have implications for the question of creation, but that the former does not rest on the latter, but on our nature as living creatures caught up in relations of interdependence and care.

Robert Stern is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Sheffield. He is the author of Understanding Moral Obligation: Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard and Kantian Ethics: Value, Agency, and Obligation, and co-editor of What Is Ethically Demanded? K.E. Loegstrup's Philosophy of Moral Life. A fully referenced version of this article appears in The Ethics of Nature and The Nature of Ethics.

read more:http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2018/02/08/4800861.htm

---------------------------------

What a lot of mixed up over-valued poop…


"When something as unconditional as an expression of life comes from the universe, the thought springs to mind that humankind is not irrelevant to the universe…" Bullshit. This is a sophistical theorem designed to give us bigger boots than we deserve. A cat or a gnat has as much value: Nil.
As I have mentioned many times on this site, the universe has no clue that we exist. The universe does not see us — though we see “part of it” with our eyes, our probes and our imagination (including sciences).
The existence of “nature” is accidental, not designed. That complex chemicals writes codes to survive their own growth, death and processes (there is no life without change) is highly precise chaos at a specific environmental factors set. This is not planned. The reactivity is ad hoc. Yet this interaction of molecules has let to what we see as a “purposeful” evolution. 
And yes, our nature as living creatures is caught up in "relations of interdependence and care". But this "interdependence and care” is evolved from a protein soup in which elements developed better interdependence and care for survival alone, in a changing environment. The changes in the environmental factors induced better interdependence and care. When this relative necessity was not met, extinction occurred…
In all of this, EXTINCTION is the key to explain our godly misunderstandings. At the level of care”, we, humans, have improved our “environmental factors of survivability  by changing the “environmental factors”. Extinction of species has resulted from our modifications and one major change on the horizon is “global warming”. All this is related to the “balance” in the carbon equation of this little planet, which has no value in the entire universe. But the coming changes at this level will affect OUR relationships and care. 
Read from top.

back to base...

"In the final analysis, one's thinking about ethics depends on one's way of thinking about the relation between humankind and the universe."- K.E. Loegstrup

If we are going to give nature a place in ethics, do we have to think of it as created by a benign and intelligent creator, as otherwise it must remain normatively neutral - or can we find a basis for value and normativity in nature that is independent of any such theistic conception?

…

Thus, as Loegstrup puts it, "When something as unconditional as an expression of life comes from the universe, the thought springs to mind that humankind is not irrelevant to the universe." That is, given that life for us would be impossible without the sovereign expressions of life being operative in the world, this suggests that the universe is not indifferent to us but has been created in such a way as to make this life possible.

Nonetheless, the expression of life does not rest on or require a religious commitment to creation to ground its normativity as such; this is taken for granted in Loegstrup's account, because what leads us to the idea of creation is the hospitality of the universe to this normativity, for otherwise it might seem too incredible for it to be ordered along these lines, as a world in which these goods are realized. It is thus not God's act of creation that makes the sovereign expressions of life good at an axiological or normative level, but that he created the universe is nonetheless "suggested" by them insofar as we live in a universe in which they can be fulfilled and upheld.

If we take this approach, we can then see how Loegstrup can hold that ethics may well have implications for the question of creation, but that the former does not rest on the latter, but on our nature as living creatures caught up in relations of interdependence and care.

Read more:

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2018/02/08/4800861.htm


------------------------------


Gus:

In my novel, Источник, presented as a synopsis on this site, the “ghosts” are virtual artificial consciousness of people who have died. They only can relate history but cannot dictate the present nor the future. The future is in the hand of the living — here one young woman and her clones, left to survive in the reality of a universe that is too big to know beyond a few light years while the universe has been an accepted conceptual mix of distance (space), energy and time.

Unlike K.E. Loegstrup, I do not see the necessity of including the universe in our ethics. We can gauge the universe, but the universe does not see us. We are born of chaos, not because of the will of the universe but because of its accidental structure, which clearly is defined by assemblages of particles, with various speed of interrelations. Our ethics should be our own, not that of a universal consciousness system, which cannot and doesnot exist.

At this stage our amazing survival — and that of life on this small planet — should relatively dictate how we deal with each others in order to create the ethics of peace, starting from a peace within our self. We know that life gives us a short existence in consciousness. No god, no creator, no need for voodoo. No need for sacrifice nor "devotion" but should we feel the "need" for feeling good or better, we have to understand the precise bracketing of this chaotic universe that accidentally set the parameters for our "being there", now. This is what sciences are about.

Are we going to "take care” of this little window of opportunity by being nice to each others and understand the relative evolution of the bracketing of conditions on this small space? Are we going to accept we need to “take care” of our origins and care about our fellow travellers in the journey of life — from the small gnats to the whales? "Nature" has not been neutral, here. It has developed into a system of accidental "survivance". What is going to hurt us? Nature? Our bad will, our misunderstandings or the universe?

We are unique in the midst of millions other unique little worlds like ours, that we do not know about because we cannot reach. We often do not know how to reach to our neighbours. This is where ethics should start.

Expression of life comes from the universe, but the universe does not know itself. The brackets of our energy levels are only a passing phase of an exploding universe on its way to a final stage of zero entropy: nothingness.

Read from top.

erratum, correction, apology...

Here or on this site somewhere I sort of postulated that Gravity worked in negative time. How loony of me. Einstein had already proposed a very different theory (more accurate of course) before me:

 

According to him, there is no gravity — only curved spacetime. There you are. My apology for leading you astray.

 

 

 

Read from top.

 

See also:

celebrating the madness of life...