Skip to main content

View Diary: My first Eco-diary:  The earth is Alive? (49 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If your question to me (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    linkage

    was serious, then my response is equally serious, albeit not seriously stated (by either of us, I think.)

    The rock and the amoeba both operate according to simple, comprehensible, physical laws. One is alive, one is not. You seem to imply some contradiction in that, which I do not see.

    Why must the rock (or the Earth, for that matter) be alive, simply because the amoeba is?

    --Shannon

    •  One is an organism the other is not but both (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      linkage

      Are complex systems and can only be partially described by physics.  there is much physics can say about them, but there is also much it can not.  Modern science has gone far beyond that kind of naiveity.  Here's the banner from our Virginia Commonwealth university Complex Systems Research group webpage

      The Mexican sierra [fish] has "XVII-15-IX" spines in the dorsal fin. These can easily be counted ... We could, if we wished, describe the sierra thus: "D. XVII-15-IX; A. II-15-IX," but we could see the fish alive and swimming, feel it plunge against the lines, drag it threshing over the rail, and even finally eat it. And there is no reason why either approach should be inaccurate. Spine-count description need not suffer because another approach is also used. Perhaps, out of the two approaches we thought there might emerge a picture more complete and even more accurate that either alone could produce.
      -- John Steinbeck, novelist, with Edward Ricketts, marine biologist (1941)

      An idea is not responsible for who is carrying it. It stands or falls on its own merits.

      by don mikulecky on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:40:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Almost... (0+ / 0-)

        there is much physics can say about them, but there is also much it can not.

        This is true only if you add the proviso, "now", to both ends of the statement.

        There is nothing about either living or non-living systems that is, in principle, unknowable, beyond the limits of the uncertainty principle.

        "We do not understand X" is not the smae thing as "we cannot understand X."

        --Shannon

        •  Again you are dogmatic about your lack of (0+ / 0-)

          knowledge.  it is an unfortunate attitude.  You have much to learn and trolling is not becoming to you.

          This is true only if you add the proviso, "now", to both ends of the statement.

          Is in fact a provably incorrect statement.  Again I offer you an extensive bibliography by well establihed scholars that makes your naiveity rather embarrasing.

          An idea is not responsible for who is carrying it. It stands or falls on its own merits.

          by don mikulecky on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:55:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site