If an Impact Destroyed Earth, would 'God' Care?

"tension_on_the_wire" wrote in message
...
On Mar 5, 7:23 am, wrote:
On Mar 5, 12:08 am, tension_on_the_wire
wrote:


The reason life is able to be continually renewed on Earth is because
of the constant influx of energy from the sun, preventing Earth from
being a closed system, in effect. This is the only reason that the
high-energy state (of organized biology) that exists in a
"particulate" state all over the planet can be maintained. It would
surely descend into disorder and decomposition otherwise, and fairly
rapidly, without the sun, as has been illustrated in numerous
apocolyptic scenarios where the sun's energy got blocked out by one
cause or another. It is predicted that a life-extinction event on
^^^^.....
Earth would take less than 18 months to complete itself. This is what
....^^^^^
they were talking about....the conversion of Earth to an effectively
closed system.

That's a very interesting estimate. The scenario could arise, for
instance, if a large wandering mass passed thru our Solar System and
disturbed Terra out of its orbit and off into remote space. Where is
this estimate developed? Please cite source.

I liked the discussion that evolution of higher forms of life requires
energy sources and sinks. It touches on the idea that if our human
species gets off Terra, it expands into the Solar System and how far can
that go? In my construction of the future, the development will begin
with Lunies and Mars men; progress to Belters who live and work among
the asteroids. I don't see so much longterm settlement near Jupiter
owing to the radiation environment there; but in time, some Belters move
out and begin finding places in the Oort cloud and they become Spacers.
All of which is wonderfully accessible to imaginative thinking.

(Which is not accomplished by tossing out more or less random quick
questions.)

In all of this, the life basics mentioned up this thread, all apply.
And my guess about how this happens is that over the short run it's
nuclear energy, which has to make comeback when we get out into space;
but over the longer run, I can see the space environment as good for
large thermonuclear power generators. Which being orbital, are easily
moved to wherever they are needed. And I'd expect those to be
long-lived. Thus the solar energy early life needs, is supplemented and
then replaced in our future by hi-tech built resources. Thus the energy
basics which must apply, do apply, and there's my construction of a
human future in space.

Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2009 Mar 05]

On Mar 5, 9:11*pm, "Martha Adams" wrote:
"tension_on_the_wire" wrote in message

...
On Mar 5, 7:23 am, wrote:

On Mar 5, 12:08 am, tension_on_the_wire
wrote:

The reason life is able to be continually renewed on Earth is because
of the constant influx of energy from the sun, preventing Earth from
being a closed system, in effect. *This is the only reason that the
high-energy state (of organized biology) that exists in a
"particulate" state all over the planet can be maintained. *It would
surely descend into disorder and decomposition otherwise, and fairly
rapidly, without the sun, as has been illustrated in numerous
apocolyptic scenarios where the sun's energy got blocked out by one
cause or another. *It is predicted that a life-extinction event on
* * * * * * * * * *^^^^.....
Earth would take less than 18 months to complete itself. *This is what
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ....^^^^^
they were talking about....the conversion of Earth to an effectively
closed system.

That's a very interesting estimate. *The scenario could arise, for
instance, if a large wandering mass passed thru our Solar System and
disturbed Terra out of its orbit and off into remote space. *Where is
this estimate developed? *Please cite source.

No citation available at the moment, it would take some time to find
it again, but it is not a very crucial number. It is a rough
estimate, give or take as much as a year, of the time it would take
for all plant life to die after all sunlight were to be removed from
the planet, and the subsequent amount of time it would take for the
animal world to consume itself in starvation and then die. With
technology and storage, of course, I suppose human life would last
longer, but it would be a dead-end future with no foreseeable
renewable food source. This is a very simple scenario which does not
take into account the Noah's Ark phenomenon of saving and preserving
genetic and seed information of all species. Without it, of course,
there would be no future colonization following an extinction event.
Be prepared.

--tension

On Mar 5, 11:20*pm, tension_on_the_wire
wrote:
On Mar 5, 7:23*am, wrote:



On Mar 5, 12:08*am, tension_on_the_wire
wrote:

On Mar 4, 7:40*pm, "Jonathan" wrote:

* "Apparently with no surprise
* * To any happy flower,
* * The frost beheads it at its play
* * In accidental power.

* * *The blond assassin passes on,
* * *The sun proceeds unmoved
* * * To measure off another day
* * * For an approving God."

Nope!

Not at all, I believe if there is a god, 'He' would approve.

As the primary driving force for the evolution of all things is change.
The basic element of life and the universe is found in ...far...from
equilibrium systems, not near equilibrium. *Events...random events
are required to fuel the dynamics needed to initiate self organizing
or evolving systems which define our material and living reality.

To the very core, it's randomness that is the source of all Creation.

On Mar 6, 4:15*pm, wrote:
On Mar 5, 11:20*pm, tension_on_the_wire
wrote:





On Mar 5, 7:23*am, wrote:

On Mar 5, 12:08*am, tension_on_the_wire
wrote:

On Mar 4, 7:40*pm, "Jonathan" wrote:

* "Apparently with no surprise
* * To any happy flower,
* * The frost beheads it at its play
* * In accidental power.

* * *The blond assassin passes on,
* * *The sun proceeds unmoved
* * * To measure off another day
* * * For an approving God."

Nope!

Not at all, I believe if there is a god, 'He' would approve.

As the primary driving force for the evolution of all things is change.
The basic element of life and the universe is found in ...far...from
equilibrium systems, not near equilibrium. *Events...random events
are required to fuel the dynamics needed to initiate self organizing
or evolving systems which define our material and living reality.

To the very core, it's randomness that is the source of all Creation.

After all, a totally disordered or random system has as it's future
only one possible direction, towards more order. As is shown in the
study of random boolean networks.

I'm afraid your basic premise is incorrect. *The system to which you
are assigning a random state is one made of atoms. *When it comes to
order and chaos, atoms tend to follow the laws of thermodynamics, not
the behaviour of random boolean networks. *And the laws of
thermodynamics are pretty clear about the fact that order begets chaos
in closed systems, and it is irrelevant whether you are examining very
small molecular systems or those of great big astronomical bodies.
The concept of absolute zero, in heat measurement, describes exactly
what happens in a closed system which is allowed to run down to total
chaos and zero order. *

I think you aren't clear about what the laws of thermodynamics tell
us. *If a system is closed, how would it reach absolute zero?

Is that a polite way of asking me to explain the laws of
thermodynamics? *Or are you really trying to tell me I don't know what
I'm talking about

Yes, that's basically it.

while asking a question which reflects a fair
absence of basic chemistry and physics? *I don't mind explaining as
long as you aren't trying to mock me.

In a closed system, meaning no energy or matter is permitted into or
out of the system, all chemical reactions and physical actions that
expend any energy at all result in a lower energy state,

What does 'expend energy' mean in a closed system? *Say you have a gas
at at 23 degrees C.

Why are you asking such a basic question and then presuming to declare
that I am the one who does not understand thermodynamics?

--tension

J. Porter Clark wrote:
Nominee for the Purely Academic Question of the Year.


Makes a great cartoon though:
http://www.boulder.swri.edu/clark/chance/23oldcom.jpg
The Moon seems glad to be rid of us.

Pat

On Mar 7, 1:06*am, tension_on_the_wire
wrote:
On Mar 6, 4:15*pm, wrote:



On Mar 5, 11:20*pm, tension_on_the_wire
wrote:

On Mar 5, 7:23*am, wrote:

On Mar 5, 12:08*am, tension_on_the_wire
wrote:

On Mar 4, 7:40*pm, "Jonathan" wrote:

* "Apparently with no surprise
* * To any happy flower,
* * The frost beheads it at its play
* * In accidental power.

* * *The blond assassin passes on,
* * *The sun proceeds unmoved
* * * To measure off another day
* * * For an approving God."

Nope!

Not at all, I believe if there is a god, 'He' would approve.

As the primary driving force for the evolution of all things is change.
The basic element of life and the universe is found in ...far....from
equilibrium systems, not near equilibrium. *Events...random events
are required to fuel the dynamics needed to initiate self organizing
or evolving systems which define our material and living reality.

To the very core, it's randomness that is the source of all Creation.

After all, a totally disordered or random system has as it's future
only one possible direction, towards more order. As is shown in the
study of random boolean networks.

I'm afraid your basic premise is incorrect. *The system to which you
are assigning a random state is one made of atoms. *When it comes to
order and chaos, atoms tend to follow the laws of thermodynamics, not
the behaviour of random boolean networks. *And the laws of
thermodynamics are pretty clear about the fact that order begets chaos
in closed systems, and it is irrelevant whether you are examining very
small molecular systems or those of great big astronomical bodies..
The concept of absolute zero, in heat measurement, describes exactly
what happens in a closed system which is allowed to run down to total
chaos and zero order. *

I think you aren't clear about what the laws of thermodynamics tell
us. *If a system is closed, how would it reach absolute zero?

Is that a polite way of asking me to explain the laws of
thermodynamics? *Or are you really trying to tell me I don't know what
I'm talking about

Yes, that's basically it.

while asking a question which reflects a fair
absence of basic chemistry and physics? *I don't mind explaining as
long as you aren't trying to mock me.

In a closed system, meaning no energy or matter is permitted into or
out of the system, all chemical reactions and physical actions that
expend any energy at all result in a lower energy state,

What does 'expend energy' mean in a closed system? *Say you have a gas
at at 23 degrees C.

Why are you asking such a basic question and then presuming to declare
that I am the one who does not understand thermodynamics?


No, I presumed that you do not understand basic thermodynamics first,
then asked the question to test my hypothesis. Easy enough for you to
explain what you mean by 'expend energy'; I have not come across this
expression, but perhaps your studies are more advanced than mine.

-tg





--tension

"don findlay" wrote in message
...
Of course he would. What a daft question. You'd better get in your
bath Jonathon, ..and batten down.
He is Not A Merciful God. His Wrath Knows No Bounds. Why would He
_Bother_ to Make you (small you) in His Image (big image), and then
not care if you are wiped off the face of His *Abundance* - Earth?
He'll mark you (just you) for Pestilence and Famine, ..because He
Loves You.

(And other such Gobbledegook.)

Wot Abaaaat Plate Tectonics? Doe Emily have anything to say about
subduction?


Hmm...she seems to think mountains rise out of the ground from
some other unseen process. Sorry~



The Mountains -- grow unnoticed --
Their Purple figures rise
Without attempt -- Exhaustion --
Assistance -- or Applause --

In Their Eternal Faces
The Sun -- with just delight
Looks long -- and last -- and golden --
For fellowship -- at night --

"tension_on_the_wire" wrote in message
...
On Mar 4, 7:40 pm, "Jonathan" wrote:

To the very core, it's randomness that is the source of all Creation.

After all, a totally disordered or random system has as it's future
only one possible direction, towards more order. As is shown in the
study of random boolean networks.

I'm afraid your basic premise is incorrect. The system to which you
are assigning a random state is one made of atoms.


From a reductionist frame of reference that would be correct, all of what
you say is correct. But as I said at the start, I was talking about a system
perspective. Where order and disorder are defined relative the....output
of the system, it's global behavior. Not from the part or component
properties. So from a system perspective order and chaos, or simple
vs complex has an entirely different meaning.

You're still using a linear perspective where order vs complexity
is measured, say, on a sliding scale from zero to infinity
A non-linear frame would call complex the place where simple
and chaotic behavior transitions from one to the other. Such
as the very narrow temp range where water is transitioning
to vapor. That is the highest level of complexity, at that transition
point. Either opposite possibility, water /or/ vapor, is considered
simple by comparison to the behavior /at/ the point the system
changes state. This is because at the transition point the behavior
is a combination of the two states of matter, requiring both
fields of science at once to describe the whole. Once on either
side of the transition, only one field is needed so to speak.
So simplicity is found in either the static or chaotic realms, and
complexity is found when the system is equally dominated
by both types of behavior....at...the transition point from
simple to chaotic.

It's at this very narrow transition point where spontaneous order emerges.
Requiring a system pushed far from equilibrium, just far enough to persistently
reside near this delicate phase transition. And pushed usually by random
interactions from outside systems. This narrow transition point is commonly
called the Edge of Chaos.

Perturbation and Transients - The Edge of Chaos
http://www.calresco.org/perturb.htm
Attractors everywhere - Order from Chaos
http://www.calresco.org/attract.htm


linear frame of reference (part perspective)

order(simple) chaotic(complex)

0 ---------------- ------------ Infinity


in a non-linear frame of reference (system perspective) becomes

0---------- infinity ------- 0
simple------ complex ---------simple
static ------- dynamic --------chaotic
solid ------- liquid --------- gas
classical motion thermodynamics quantum motion


So in this view the highest level of complexity is at the point where the
system is a combination of both behaviors or states. And also at it's
lowest ability to quantify. At the edge. where both classical and quantum
like behaviors are entangled.



When it comes to
order and chaos, atoms tend to follow the laws of thermodynamics, not
the behavior of random boolean networks.

Well, again you're right, but boolean networks describe the behavior of
the ...output... of complex adaptive systems, of which thermodynamics
is but the simplest example.

"A Boolean network has 2N possible states. Sooner or later it will reach
a previously visited state, and thus, since the dynamics are deterministic, fall
into an attractor."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_network


An attractor, meaning cyclic behavior, spontaneously emerges.
Cyclic behavior is a greater level of order than totally random.



And the laws of
thermodynamics are pretty clear about the fact that order begets chaos
in closed systems, and it is irrelevant whether you are examining very
small molecular systems or those of great big astronomical bodies.
The concept of absolute zero, in heat measurement, describes exactly
what happens in a closed system which is allowed to run down to total
chaos and zero order. Those systems do not reassemble themselves
spontaneously into ordered systems.

But your closed system with zero order is my static attractor.
Which could be described like spinning a ball inside a bowl.
Sooner or later it comes to rest at the bottom, this is also
called subcritical behavior. As opposed to supercritical behavior
like a gas dissipating. Or as in gravity vs cosmic expansion.



Show me at least one example
where this is not the case and I'll be happy to retract.


How many examples do you want?
When a static system finds itself in an unstable equilibrium (complex)
relationship with its chaotic attractor. Then often a third type
of behavior spontaneously emerges, called dynamic.


As in... solid liquid gas
static dynamic chaotic
particle motion thermodynamics quantum motion
rule of law democracy freedom
genetics natural selection mutation
knowledge genius imagination
producer market consumer
science art
religion
matter light energy

pre-invasion Iraq democratic Iraq post-invasion Iraq


When a system is dominated by /either/ the static or chaotic attractor, it's
behavior is short lived and tragic. But, as boolean networks show, and as
any good intuition knows, these opposites tend to attract each other
...they cross paths.. sooner or later. Then life has it's chance.
The middle or complex dynamic realms are all emergent. They
are all spontaneous creations of the combination of static and
chaotic system behavior. Or edge states.

You see, a non linear frame of reference provides the essential ability
to describe.....every discipline...within a single mathematics.

Even the disciplines or art and religion are now under the gun of modern
mathematics. Once you learn the universal frame of reference of
complexity science.

And you know what, suddenly the commonalties among all the
countless disciplines become easy to see. There is a simplicity
to our reality that can't be seen from a reductionist or from the
input side of reality. You have to inverse the initial frame
of our scientific method, and /start with the output/ of the whole.

For instance, the behavior or output of life tends to follow power law
relationships, which in essence is really just another inverse-square law.
It's not a coincidence that fitness peak look a lot like gravity wells.

Life is no more a fluke than a black hole.


Dynamics of Complex Systems
Full online text
http://necsi.org/publications/dcs/



--tension

"Martha Adams" wrote in message
...

This 'God' concept isn't quite nonsense -- it's an adult recall of what the
child guesses before reaching any age of rationality. Since this thinking
very often reappears in overt mental health issues, it's not nonsense. It's
pathology.


Is there nothing you would admit is 'unknowable' or forever mysterious?
Does everything have to have a rational explanation?
Does the term God need to be defined precisely?

If you believe in the big bang, then what came before, if anything, is
unknowable and may also be responsible for our existence.

Don't you see what the word God means now?

God is the most unknowable thing in the universe.
The source of our Creation.

So when someone asks for a definition of God? It only shows
they don't understand the concept. When one dismisses the
concept, it's like hearing someone say "I know everything".

This is not a word game, the entire point of complexity science is to
find...understand...model...and swim in the one place in a system
where quantification is most futile, the complex realm. Called K-Crit.
The one and only place where rational...precise...repeatable...testable
methods utterly fail.

IT'S THE ONE AND ONLY PLACE YOUR SCIENTIFIC METHOD CAN'T SEE.

So you don't even try to look. I mean if you can't put a number to it
why bother you would say. Well, it just so happens, that's the one
place where self organization ... CREATION... gets it's impetus.

The one place objective methods can't see, and typically dismiss as
noise.

The source of all creation is found in system properties not part properties.
System properties are subjective, part properties objective.
So we took the easy route first, down reductionist way. Only thing is that
renders the subjective aspects of reality unscientific.

The minute you insist on a precise definition, relationship or quantity, the
true source of creation becomes invisible.

What you have to do is look outside your window at that passing cloud.

And admit we're never going to be able to predict it's future shape to any
meaningful degree, so why try? Instead, let's try to unravel the system
relationships that give that cloud it's life giving abilities. The relationship
between condensation and evaporation for instance. Then look at a
society, and compare the abstract system structure. And see they are
the same, and over and over everywhere you look you see the same system
general behavioral properties and structures.

Spanning the material, living and spiritual worlds.

Then you suddenly realize this universe has an previously unseen simplicity
that means life and intelligence are more than likely, but virtually
unstoppable.

A universe that simple, which creates such complex wonders, must be given
a worthy name. A reverent name. A name above all others.

It wouldn't be rational to do otherwise.




" I Never saw a moor,
I never saw the sea;
Yet know I how the heather looks,
And what a wave must be.
I never spoke with God,
Nor visited in heaven;
Yet certain am I of the spot
As if the chart were given."




s

On Mar 5, 10:21*am, Van Chocstraw
wrote:

: The gospels say that Jesus said the earth would be
: destroyed in THEIR life time and the kingdom of God
: would be set up here on earth before the end of their
: generation. It didn't happen. Scriptures expired.
: It was all a hoax.

: --
: //--------------------\\
: Van Chocstraw
: \\--------------------//

IMO the world won't end at the hand of someone other
than the One who created it - so who is going to say
that destroying the earth WON'T glorify God?

It will be the judgement on gentile nations concerning
their attitude of the people of YHWH that may cause
this to happen.


American

"One for all and all for One"

- anonymous