I love the web, I just freakin’ love it. The Los Angeles Meteorite. Following up from yesterday’s mention, this is the JPL web site concerning the Mars meteorite. from UniSci
Is Quantum Evolution The New Science Of Life? from UniSci
"A biologist from the University of Surrey in the UK, Dr Johnjoe McFadden, has put together a revolutionary theory that seeks to explain the beginnings of life in a brand new popular science book, Quantum Evolution."
Now this really piques my interest. In the last couple of weeks I’ve been involved in several rather squishy discussions about this sort of thing. I use "squishy" because none of us are mathematicians or physicists and I know if you don’t grok the math you’re probably talking out your ass. Not knowing what you’re talking about doesn’t slow down most people, but at least we’re aware which end is talking. The whole notion that we live in a metaverse that we view from the perspective of a subset that is only four dimensional raises a lot of interesting thoughts. Now I know that a lot of you are probably waaaay ahead of me here, but excuse my doubtlessly naïve ramblings that follow. I don’t know how many of you have seen the animated short Flatland. Flatland is two-dimensional, a cartesian plane. The population is composed of points, lines, circles, and polygons – all in two-dimensional space of course. The Flatland scientists are examining the possibility, some of them say likliehood, that there is a third dimension – one that has volume. The mataphor is rather evident, yes? Anyway, a bright young circle grasps this readily and exclaims that if there are three dimensions, there could be more! Four, five, maybe even ten dimensions! The wise old circle cautions the young one to not leave science and get into the realm of psuedo-science.
OK, point well taken. Still, if there is this type of organization extant in the universe that we glimpse only when our four dimensions intersect with the other ones (as in light is a wave or a particle depending on how you investigate it) really helps he to understand atomic oribitals and indeed most of what I’ve read about what has gone on in Physics in the last 100 years.
I realize that the universe described is observer dependant, but this is enticing for me to gain a glimpse of why we’re observing what we’re observing. If scientists can begin to get a handle on underlying structure, greater understanding can not be far behind.
Of course, popularized versions of quantum mechanics (Gary Zakov’s Dancing Wu-Li Masters comes to mind) have shaped much of my understanding of this field, because, as I said, I can’t do the math. But the similarities with Vedic and Buddhist texts, and quantum mechanics in the descriptions (not mechanics) of the nature of the phenomenological world continue to amaze me. Cyclic expansion and contraction of the universe(s), worlds within worlds, and the religious nature of ecstasy, there seems to be an astonsishing amnount of congruence. At least to me.
We live in interesting times. Wonderfully interesting times.