61 replies to this topic

[duke_Qa]

brain in water gets soggy.

[MSpencer]

Proteins, specifically kinases, act as signal transducers in most non-nerve cells. In nerve cells, the same is true but it is a different system. In nearly every somatic cell, that is everything but the gametic cells, information is relayed through the presence of Ca+ or K+ ions, tyrosine kinases, signal ligands, or in most cases through gap junctions and the transfer of said materials from certain synthesis pathways in the cell. When there is an overpresence of a certain material, in this case a chain of amino acids, or in the case of caffeine, a substance which causes increased synthesis of adenosine, receptors will become more prevalent as the cell responds to an increase in concentration. Normally the change is not profound, a few receptors here and there, but when it happens on the scale of about a billion cells, it can be manifested in physiological terms.
That is English, and that really is as simple as it gets. It's not my problem you can't understand it.

[Airman]

So...why do we have calcium and patassium ions in our brains? (Yes, I know what ions are...)

[duke_Qa]

because we eat calcium and patassium in our food and that their chemicals are most likely the best to use in the brain after a few million years of trial and failure i would say.

[Airman]

Well, I seriuosly doubt that we have been around for millions of years.

[Pastinator]

No, we might not have been, but other humans, our ape like ancestors, or anything else with a brain probally will have beeen, and they all need brains to. Theres been so many things needing brains and loads of creatures working on it, one has got to get it right. Then pass on their genes.

[MSpencer]

It's cellular signaling. Ca+ and K+ ions have been around since the first eukaryotic multicellular organisms as ways to signal certain things to work or to open. The golgi apparatus, which serves numerous transport purposes inside the cell, utilizes calcium ions to determine when it will create a new vesicle and where. It's internal, within the cell, and is just a more simplistic method than protein-ligand reactions to cause a cellular action. Since calcium and potassium are easily ionizable in most salt forms, what we're talking about is not just pure calcium in you, it's an ionized concentration of minerals which are actively transported in solution through channel proteins, with the changes in solute triggering a certain cellular response.
And they're not only in our brain. They're in every somatic and gametic cell in your body, the same with tyrosine kinases and various extracellular proteinaceous particles which comprise the ECM on most cells. You can't really say they just float around up there, they have defined, singular purposes and can be found in pretty much every eukaryotic organism in existence today. Truly a product of evolution.

[AdmiralGT]

The multiverse theory states that for every action in the universe, due to the laws of quantum mechanics and probability, another, parallel, almost identical universe is created hinging off of that single event. Think of it as a fork in the road. The theory also purports that there is an infinite number of parallel universes, each of them different in some way from our own. Whether we know it or not, our universe is constantly changing and generating new parallel universes. We're not the "real" universe either, all the other universes are quite as real with the same organisms and celestial bodies populating them, with nothing changed except for the event of divergence, and any resulting effects, and then of course the natural continuing events of the universe. Logically, the theory works with everything we know about atomic structure and the general reasoning of the universe. We know a lot more than we give ourselves credit for, really.

You in fact, argue my point, quite well. You see, Multiverse Theorem, is just that, a theorem. Thus, your statement

even though that's impossible by the simple fact that every time the future changes, a new parallel universe is created.

It is indeed not fact, but opinion.

However, if multiverse theorem were indeed true, it would be possible to perceive the future, because every outcome of the future would be able to exist, and therefore, one of the infinite parallel universes would contain the exact information you perceive.

And mutliverse theorem has it's problems. If a parallel universe is created at every fork, where are all these other universes? Where do they come from? Where does all this energy come from? Do other universes also fork? If so, that means it is possible for parallel universes to become the same as each other. (2 exact events, happening at different points in space-time could ultimately lead to the same "conclusion" of universe).

Nor do all parallel universes have the same organisms and celestial bodies. By the very nature of the theorem, there must be a universe which is the complete opposite of our own, as well as for each parallel universe out there. Logically you could possibly describe these as "Anti-Universes".

You also must ask, do parallel universes have the same laws of physics as our own? If they differ, surely the laws of quantum physics would differ, meaning the multiverse theorem could break down.

And multiverse theorem is not due to the laws of quantum physics, but is merely an interpretation of them. Seeing as we cannot even define quantum physics ourselves, what we know, and what we think we know, are two very different things.

[Airman]

Well, I'm a Creationist and I believe in creation. Yall go ahead and believe that pile of horse crap you guys call "Evolution" if you want to...(That applies to evolutionists)

[Tom]

The multiuniverse theory can still work with creation Ben. My argument, well not argument as i obviously have no proof other than my faith, but my belief is that the multiverse is a natural part of creation. An infinite string or array of universes created from infinity to infinity to play our every aspect of existence in the third dimensional realm. Technically the multiverse could be argued (if you believe in dimensions) as the fourth dimension. We may discover it in the future, we may not. It may exist or it may not.

If God/creation exists it is obviously infinite, it all makes sense in that way. One universe ends another begins, the big bang.

If we could understand how the big bang happened, apparent energy that came from nowhere we could possibly understand how creation works. Then again as we have no proof at this time no one will want to believe it, naturally everyone would be skeptical.

The only "evidence" the mutliverse theory has is this http://www.johntitor.com

But we know why everyone is skeptical of this and everyone should be skeptical of everything until its proved in order to not be fooled (yeah may sound rich coming from me but its quite true).

[Airman]

Hey, I didn't say that I didn't believe in alternate realities...

[duke_Qa]

Well, I'm a Creationist and I believe in creation. Yall go ahead and believe that pile of horse crap you guys call "Evolution" if you want to...(That applies to evolutionists)

another fine example from organized religions finest.

i really would like you to post at least 5-10 lines in defence to why you mean evolution is horsecrap, and then perhaps 5-10 lines in defence of why creationism is much better, instead of just using rhetorics.

[Cossack]

Yes, I would like to see that as well. I would like to see you write 10 lines saying why evolution is horse crap, and why creationism is true, and then allow us to completly destroy every single one of those facts with hard scientific evidence.

Not believing in evolution is like not believing the earth is round and that we revolve around the sun. Its like holding a red pen in front of your face and saying without a doubt "this pen is blue". The only reason evolution is called a "theory" instead of a fact, is because of idiots who are so blinded by there crazy beliefs that they dont even belive hard evidence that they can see with their own eyes, and that is sitting right in front of them.

Evolution, in my opinion, is a fact not a theory.

[MSpencer]

Thank you for the clarification GT. As you can see, there is certainly a reason why I like to stick to biology. Squishy things are better.
I like the idea of the multiverse theory, but I have also been thinking, on obviously a much lower than astrophysical level, about exactly where the required mass and energy would come from to spontaneously and instantaneously generate this new parallel universe. The criteria would also be interesting, such as... do I individually create a parallel universe every time I move my foot? Like, if I'm tapping my foot right now, and then I consider stopping, according to multiverse, have I created a new universe, or what is the point of divergence? If it is as I had first stated, there would truly be an infinite number of possibilities.

Well, I'm a Creationist and I believe in creation. Yall go ahead and believe that pile of horse crap you guys call "Evolution" if you want to...(That applies to evolutionists)

Go ahead and belittle your own existence. Be ignorant. Be foolish. Not my responsibility to change it.
What a stereotypical American.

[Jeeves]

Right, so we have dreams because the bible doesn't say we don't. Thats a very simple way of looking at things.
Notice how the bible doesn't actually say "Thou shalt refuse to use your goddamn brain." ? If god did create you, and he included the abilty to think in the package, does it not stand to reason he would want you to use your head?
The bible doesn't say thou shalt use keyboards, so why the hell are you even typing? And it does instruct you not to force your religion upon others, so you mention creationism again, you'd better make peace with your high and mighty savior, because you will be damning yourself to an eternity to hell. Unless of course you only choose to agree with the parts of the holy book that suit you, such as where you fail the mental capacity to understand anything beyond 2000 year old speculation.
The Pope accepted Big Bang theory, and he is closer to gods wisdom than you, so where the hell does that put you anyhow?
I read this topic in the belief that it wasn't another case of "bible doesn't say that, therefore its not true!" so could it go anymore on topic again? </rant>

Dreams facinate me. Its not because I have weird dreams, but the fact I recall none. As far as my concious mind is concerned, I have never drempt a dream, so when people go on about their dreams it just amases me, its something I just cannot imagine. Its like describing color to blind man.

[Airman]

Well, a few years ago, I saw a show series about creation. I forgot what it;s called, but it's explains how evolution is wrong. I had nothing else to do, so I watched them. It had REAL people talking about creation stuff. That's what I believe. Yep, go ahead and laugh. I can take it.

[AdmiralGT]

Thank you for the clarification GT. As you can see, there is certainly a reason why I like to stick to biology. Squishy things are better.
I like the idea of the multiverse theory, but I have also been thinking, on obviously a much lower than astrophysical level, about exactly where the required mass and energy would come from to spontaneously and instantaneously generate this new parallel universe. The criteria would also be interesting, such as... do I individually create a parallel universe every time I move my foot? Like, if I'm tapping my foot right now, and then I consider stopping, according to multiverse, have I created a new universe, or what is the point of divergence? If it is as I had first stated, there would truly be an infinite number of possibilities.

I won't profess to know all about the theorem, and therefore could be quite wrong. However, I believe the theorem centres around spin states. Fundamental particles have 2 spin states, convienently called "spin up" and "spin down". By the "laws" of quantum physics, these particlesare in a superposition of the two states. This is like probability, but on a quantum scale where an object is partly spin up and partly spin down. However, when we observe the object, it is either spin up, or spin down. This I believe is where the divergence occurs. One universe observes one state, the other observes the other state and we diverge.

This then gets misinterpreted to a macroscopic scale, where every decision we make causes new universes. However, you could hypothesise that a "decision" is just a series of spin state observations, presumably there is some sort of atomic sequence for human decision making.

So indeed, the decision to stop tapping your foot, or not, has probably created some rather large number of universes.

[MSpencer]

Yes I was always quite sketchy on how the entire thing works. Beyond impulses I can't think of anything related to human decision making, it's really more of a neuroscience thing which all depends on the lights being on up top. Multiverse seems a little sketchy and unresolved to be taken too seriously.

Well, a few years ago, I saw a show series about creation. I forgot what it;s called, but it's explains how evolution is wrong. I had nothing else to do, so I watched them. It had REAL people talking about creation stuff. That's what I believe. Yep, go ahead and laugh. I can take it.

Perhaps produced by the Evangelical Society of America? Theologians are not scientists. Evolution has mountains upon mountains of evidence, substantiated by every field of the natural sciences, and compiled by some of the most intelligent mathematicians, biologists, chemists, and zoologists in history. The evidence for creationism is a book written four thousand years ago by several different people with absolutely no knowledge of the world beyond Israel, and the will to dominate an entire society. There is absolutely no reason why religious ridiculousness should be given any credence, especially over such an all-inclusive, amazing, and observable theory such as evolution through natural selection. Those who do not believe in evolution are only the babbling idiots who cannot understand, or will themselves not to out of some ignorance-spreading idea of ignoring those devil-scientists. There is no place for religious superstition in the modern world. That has been made abundantly clear by, not only you, but cdtmx(yr), in what I can only describe as a more devastating argument against Christianity than I could ever construct in my lifetime.
Thank you, you have both sunk your ships. Now we have a self-loathing Christian who invites us to laugh at his ridiculous superstition, and a self-righteous Christian who informs us that we're all going to hell. It's not too late you know, I've always offered to teach evolution to those who don't understand it.
I'm too nice sometimes.

[Pastinator]

wow, the thnk tank, we start with dreams and the sub concious, and go into multiverses and creationsim versus evoloution!

[Athena]

Yeah, a lot of topics seem to evolve into that. I'd prefer to stick to dreams and the subconcious mind in this one, personally.