Philosophy is dead...?

[Castiel]

Your right that source was pretty weak.

But If what your saying is true then we would notice, surely some distant galaxys coming towards us.

I've never heard of this separate expansion of the universe. If we were expanding and the properties were changing to compensate for that, we would notice, scientists with all their recording equipments would very quickly notice.

What would be catalyst of this expansion? We have a distant galaxy expansion caused by we dont exactly know what(dark matter they say). And this other expansion completely separate to that, does it have the same cause, dark matter, I think there would be a conflict of expansions there. An expansion like what your talking about is a pointless expansion, everything is expanding so nothing is expanding.

It's not an expansion of the universe, but matter. But your right it seems pointless, but while it is infinitisimal on the scale of things it is still quantifiable over millennia.

I'll have a look through my physics books to find the equation when I've got time.

 

[Xordium]

So no real explanation on why they think philosophy is dead then Maustin?

Not really and also it appears all science is quantitative.

 

[mrk]

I don't think Philosophy is dead because, while you guys argue about why we exist and what is the mind, I'm wondering whether a Jaffa Cake is a cake or a biscuit

As long as it's soft it's a cake, once it's left in the air a few hours it becomes a biscuit!

 

[MookJong]

This has got to be the stupidest thing I've read in a while on this forum. Or more accurately,ignorant; you could be extremely intelligent but you have absolutely no idea as to how basic biochemistry works.

I am yet to read an explanation of the reasons behind the behavior of the double helix. Maybe I am ignorant....anyone point me to an answer?

 

[Xordium]

I am yet to read an explanation of the reasons behind the behavior of the double helix. Maybe I am ignorant....anyone point me to an answer?

Well I am presuming you understand the concepts behind evolution - evolution occurs not just to say animal or bacteria but individual cells, ecosystems, genetic material etc. There need be no stimulus or end-goal or guiding force other than that which can reproduce itself and maintains its identity throughout time will continue to exist (that is not to say there is no guiding force just that there need is no need for one). The reason behind the behaviour of the double-helix is that its success ensured it reproduced itself. DNA is not the only chemical to display such success RNA also performs a similar function and most likely pre-existed DNA and fulfilled DNA's function a very very long time ago.

The coding mechanism DNA uses is interesting - it has the number of 'bases' to ensure good replication accuracy, a good variety of potential combinations and also a nice little bit of error so that when advantageous inaccuracy copies occur the organism test its new design against the environment to see whether it imparts some advantage. DNA is also interesting in that it is not a one-way blueprint placed at conception to be followed throughout an organisms life but one that is also open to environmental change, eg viral, that can also provide that variety that allows organisms to meet the challenges and tests of a changing environment. Hence at the small scale the nature-nurture debate is irrelevant and the answer not one but both in a very beautiful, entwined and dynamic fashion.

So in answer there is no need to have a reason "why" such an evolutionary process, for example the double helix, has occurred other than it reproduced itself successfully. We can of course always examine how it did that in the context of the environment it was placed in and why it was successful in that case, eg in the case of DNA as I described above in the terms of even the number of 'bases' being rather significant.