Miles Davis I clicked on this one bc he reminded me of a nice teacher lol and I was thinking I bet students like this guy

He looks a character out of a Christmas tale! 😁 A hobbit, elf or something like that. Perhaps because of his round nose and red cheeks. Btw no offense meant.

And a not so good philosopher

@@laurenth7187 Is it possible to be a good philosopher?

@@MilesDavisKDABIt's difficult, i know only one living, myself. So yes for scientists it's hard because they didn't study phil, so no background.

you probably don't really know what love is!

[[[Looo[oooooo

[O

L[[o[0mooo[o[[[oo[o[o[[oo

L

Instablaster.

@@waltermoss7718 ok maybe u can suggest me a couple

And Schrodinger's importance in the history of biology is mostly a retcon

There are these phrases such as ‘What is a faux pas?’ and ‘what is considered as ill manners?’

@@Doctor_Subtilis then there is ‘what is a community?’

You can't just happen to know everything though. Some things you are bound to miss, many actually.

So then the universe created itself, then evolved to us who can create within it. If we could create a universe of our own, then we might end up creating an infinite loop. Virtual reality and computers... oh wait...

DNA is "Coded" and "Digital" Information. *_"Language: All Digital communications require a formal language, which in this context consists of all the information that the sender and receiver of the digital communication must both possess, in advance, in order for the communication to be successful."_* (Wikipedia: Digital Data) During an interview, when asked if the genetic code is really a code, Dr. Richard Dawkins answered, *_“It [the genetic code] IS a code. It's definitely a code.”_* (Source: Jon Perry - Genetics & Evolution Stated Casually KZfaq Channel Interview with Dr. Richard Dawkins on 4-2-2022. Dr. Richard Dawkins is widely regarded as the world’s foremost expert on Darwinian Evolution) *_"After Watson and Crick, we know that genes themselves, within their minute internal structure, are long strings of pure digital information. What is more, they are truly digital..."_* (Richard Dawkins, River out of Eden, 16. Dr. Richard Dawkins is widely regarded as the world’s foremost expert on Darwinian Evolution) What prebiotically relevant or even modern chemical process has been observed in nature or experimentally demonstrated to be capable of producing coded digital functional information / language? Modern scientific discoveries in Genetics (i.e. biology) have shown that functional / coded / digital Information (i.e. DNA code) is at the core of All Biological Systems. Without functional / coded / digital information, there is No biology. The only known source (i.e. cause) in the universe that has been Observed (i.e. Scientific Method) in nature to be capable of producing functional / coded / digital information, such as that found even in the most primitive biological systems, is mind / consciousness / intelligence.

Here I am, brain the size of a planet....

"The first million years were the worst"

@@kevconn441 “The first ten million years were the worst," said Marvin, "and the second ten million years, they were the worst too. The third ten million years I didn't enjoy at all. After that I went into a bit of a decline.”

@@kevinshort3943 Should have left the quote marks off, I wasn't even close. Thanks for the correction though, always funny.

@@kevconn441 "I wasn't even close" Only 9 million years out, I bet you were distracted by those pesky doors :)

Read lily e Kay's books The molecular vision of life, and who wrote the book of life? Brilliant historian of life science if you want to know the serious history

Also reading Kay's works will teach you how to fdo book research like a pro if you look into the notes

Exactly.

We are not apart from everything but we are individual entities within one entity. You can the greed of existence by looking at the deep dark space. Planets have formed, basically, as separate entities, some bigger, some smaller, some solid, some gaseous. So, while the universe might have unity inside in what celestial body and ultimately life form organization is concerned, its constant expansion and separation of galaxies doesn't help this we are all one philosophy. It seems, that what actually stays together and seems likely to win, is entropy.

Life's the ability to respond.

You tell his cat that ! :)

Heisenberg did not discover the principle,like you find something that was hidden.He discovered a problem in the way that the basic physical properties of a particle in a quantum system could be measured.Then DEVELOPED the uncertainty principle to explain the problem..

@@frhe1970 Schrödinger developed Heisenberg's principle into his own much more general uncertainty relation, which is much more useful

​@@frhe1970 I meant the same thing. I anticipated somebody is going to nitpick.

@@rad858 interesting ...

Life is the ability to respond.

We are not pushing anywhere. Forever bound to tiny Earth.

I think we would have a chance with biophoton detection.

Around and around for infinity ?? Every species dies, but maybe other things are created...

Learn to spell fro fcuks sacke

Yeah, ame too. I kept thinking about Flubber. The movie with the green blob.😂🟢

nice one! LOL

Luke Then you must 100% also believe you are Heisenburg to believe you are 100% not Heisenburg and you must believe you are 100% not Heisenburg to believe you are 100% Heisenburg because you can't have one concept without the other.

I was listening to this on my way to work and I almost pulled over to leave this comment. How can you get something so fundamentally wrong in your presentation to the royal academy. Not a big deal as to the substance of the presentation, just a tiny hiccup. Schrodinger created the wave equation while Heisenberg created the uncertainty principle. Ugh.

Perhaps they climbed into Schrodinger's cat box together and became a Schroberg-Heisendinger superposition...

Strange ... when I am NOT watching this video, it seems like the uncertainty principle is both from Heisenberg and Schrödinger, AT THE SAME TIME!

Has it occurred to you, that you may be looking in the wrong place?

@@plrndl Maybe , do you suggest a better place

We may someday understand the pathway from how, from the first RNA strand several billion years ago, to the present moment, we came to be, but there may never be an understandable “role” or “purpose” in nature, other than for living things to make copies of themselves.

@@pjsteinsongs Can't dispute that -- but it is interesting to note that there can be two very different meanings of "understand". One, as you use it, refers to knowledge and its manipulation. Another is perhaps more personal, bringing the knower's character or state to bear on his knowledge. Think of a great musician engaging an audience, or one who is technically just as proficient but doesn't quite deliver the same experience.

@@robertphillips93 The musician metaphor is excellent. Can you expand on how this relates to your original comment, i.e., the relationship, if any, between life (the biosphere), and the inanimate cosmos?

@@pjsteinsongs We study cells and stars with similar instruments and methods. For stars there may be few other options -- but for a certain kind of organism, of our own phenotype, there is another instrument available to us -- the first-hand observation of the inhabitant. It is easy to dismiss such a notion as unscientific fantasy, but it is probably a safer bet that few have tried it because it is extraordinarily difficult and quite possibly dangerous to our comforting notions and preconceptions. Nevertheless, there have been notable examples of those who apparently have done just this. One thing to consider that any scientist will agree with -- any valid principles discovered in this way must have a corresponding analogue in the macro world. Laws are everywhere the same -- so this micro-investigation can yield results transferrable on a cosmic scale. Thus, under-standing . . . or, pie in the sky. So, is musician A a scientist? Not in the ordinary sense, but he has apparently identified certain "elementals" in his experience and can instinctively or consciously put them in a relationship that (in a repeatable manner) yields a new result. You don't really think "music of the spheres" was the invention of savages?!

@@robertphillips93 I think that you are suggesting the use of some quality or qualities of subjective experience that may serve as an instrument or gauge of some kind, but different from the observations of a “naturalist”?

I achieved A Level Botany and Zoology 60 years ago and found this new and fascinating

This is the most well-reasoned thought on this blog, something that seems to elude even the noble laureate who, I suppose, has been working on the topic for a long time, if not his entire career.

I'd guess he made an impression on you.

Could you elucidate on that?

Nivlek he is really on to something there though. Life requires the evolution of membranes. Saline solution in Cell different from out, creating a pump which must be fueled by electron exchanges, etc. He could have elaborated his point.

I agree. At about 10 minutes in, he said something about the 2nd law of thermodynamics not being a problem because the cell is separated from the environment. This seems arse-about-face to me: the 2nd LoT isn't a problem precisely because the cell *isn't* a closed system and is constantly exchanging materials and energy with the rest of the environment. I suspect he's one of the "old school" of great biologists who weren't so hot on physics (I know: I could google him). Especially given his Schrödinger/Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle whoopsie. Still that's not really why I'm watching, and it's been interesting so far.

Who says the first cell was ad complex as a bacteria or eukaryotes? It could be as simple as a micelle.

I'm with you on this preposterous idea that life accidentally self assembled. Arrogance and vanity seem to blind them to the obvious problem with that world view. There is an airplane junkyard in the middle of nowhere America and not once has a 747 put itself back together again from its pieces.

Only a fool can be deceived into thinking that random proteins can magically self assemble into complex DNA and RNA. Especially since there has never been a repeatable experiment done that demonstrates the hypothesis of random self assembly of organisms. If you are so clever and I am so foolish, then please recreate the genesis of complex life in a lab. If this theory were true, everyone on the planet should be able to combine the ingredients needed for life and then magically get these ingredients to become a complex life form. You can't do it, nor can anyone on this planet. It has never happened and will never happen, because it's an incorrect hypothesis. The data does not support the notion that life just happened to happen. Or, put into simple terms that a child can understand - 747s do not build themselves even when all of the pieces are present. Apparently, that analogy is over your head or beyond your cognitive capabilities since you felt the need to attack it. Maybe you can get a distinguished biologist to prove that random chemicals and proteins can be brought to life in a lab. If that ever happens, I will rescind my opinion and apologize for my error. I doubt that you will ever prove that but anything is possible.

@@bremayak so because we dont completely understand abiogenesis, it goes to divine creation by default? Hey, life is crazy, we find it so amazing that we are mystified by it and naturally substantiate its existence due to divine resources. The history of science shows everything has a natural explanation eventually and I dont think abiogenesis is any different.

Jesus planted coconuts and that is how you have life on earth Google it lol

4. Alcoholic uncle.

5. Ronnie Barker.

Can not unsee.

I was about to say Robin Williams and Joe Pesci :)

fusiform gyrus is good at lookalikes, I have it too and it goes with jumble/unscrambling skillz ... just saying

lol what

@@terrytibbs There is no way to distinguish life from non-life . The Earth itself could be viewed as a living organism and if the Universe is teeming with life, then the entire Universe should be considered a living organism too. Or otherwise, since there is no real distinction (down to the fundamental levels of QM) from life and non-life, nothing should be considered "living". We Humans believe that living things have some kind of special property to them (soul) but such thing doesn't exist when we examine their fundamental quantum parts. Everything is just a collection of atoms, a rock and a Human brain share no distinction. The laws of physics make the one collection of atoms act as a rock and the other as a human brain. Some complicated collection of atoms might look alive (collections of atoms like animals and humans) but they are not, they are just inanimate matter drifted away by the laws of physics. Nothing is really alive.

@@-_Nuke_- Just because people do not agree about at which wavelength the light is still red does not mean that the blue life and the red light are the same.

Schrödinger was the guy with the cat, no?