Paul Davies on the gap between life and non-life

_{Denyse O'Leary

February 14, 2023

Origin Of Life}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

It’s a big one. Theoretical physicist, cosmologist and astrobiologist Paul Davies talks to Robert Lawrence Kuhn at Closer to Truth about the conundrums: “What is life and how did it arise from non-life? Is it as simple as the random organization of complex chemicals on the early Earth? What are the pathways whereby chemicals turned into life? Is life inevitable? Or extremely rare? What’s remarkable is how little we know. ”

A reader notes that Davies says at 37m30s: “What life makes is consistent with physics and chemistry, but is not dictated by physics and chemistry.” Well, by a process of elimination, doesn’t that leave information? Design? And how are things designed without intelligence? At this point, one can only say, Keep talking.

Comments

PyrrhoManiac1 @70,
I worry that both options commit the same basic mistake: taking brains to be a kind of machinery.
Heh. If you have a chance to talk with a physical chemist, she would tell you that's exactly what brains (or any biology) is: namely, an extremely advanced, giant molecular machine with complex interlocking chemical cycles. And she would proceed to prove it to you! -QQuerius_{February 18, 2023
February
02
Feb
18
18
2023
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT}

Related @68,
So, “primitive” nervous systems are still around. And they work just fine.
Yeah, I always had trouble accepting the “primitive” label for organisms that are at least as highly evolved as any other from a Darwinian perspective. In fact, when counting generations, an argument can be made that bacteria are far more advanced than “primitive” humans. Who's to say that what we call gut bacteria didn't evolve exoskeletons we call humans. Remember, if all the cells in your body would vote, you would be called a bacterial colony! :-) -QQuerius_{February 18, 2023
February
02
Feb
18
18
2023
03:31 PM
3
03
31
PM
PDT}

...it struck me as having some really interesting implications.
Language is what makes us human. Whether it makes us unique is almost as interesting as the evolution of language and whether that is biological or additionally cultural. You'll get no sensible answers here.Alan Fox_{February 18, 2023
February
02
Feb
18
18
2023
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT}

Upright Biped:
[Language] is what enabled the organism to exist and evolve in the first place.
Hmm. Are you as much a fan of Chomsky as you are of of Howard Pattee?Alan Fox_{February 18, 2023
February
02
Feb
18
18
2023
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT}

@69
Language. It is what enabled the organism to exist and evolve in the first place.
Dembski once said (I think -- paraphrasing from memory) that ID just translates the Logos theology of the Gospel of John into the idiom of probability theory. Would you agree with that? To what extent is that your view as well? I ask because I've been thinking about that remark a lot lately, and it struck me as having some really interesting implications. But no one here seems interested in discussing it.PyrrhoManiac1_{February 18, 2023
February
02
Feb
18
18
2023
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT}

Just to point out that no one seriously working in neural evolution would take those to be good questions to ask. Instead, they would take the right questions to be: 1. what functional structures did organisms have prior to the evolution of brains ...
And the answer to this question is, more unfathomably complex structures, than we, who supposedly are "seriously" working in neural evolution, could ever pretend to explain by randomness, so, let's put “out of business” signs on our doors. Origenes_{February 18, 2023
February
02
Feb
18
18
2023
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT}

@65
As I mentioned before regarding the human brain, a fundamental question is whether it functions more like a self-contained programmable calculator or more like an app connected to the internet, where the internet connects to a transcendent mind (sorta like a first-person video game or The Matrix).
I worry that both options commit the same basic mistake: taking brains to be a kind of machinery.PyrrhoManiac1_{February 18, 2023
February
02
Feb
18
18
2023
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

.
what functional structures did organisms have prior to the evolution of brains
Language. It is what enabled the organism to exist and evolve in the first place.Upright BiPed_{February 18, 2023
February
02
Feb
18
18
2023
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

PM1at 63, 1) It is assumed that organisms self-upgraded. It is also assumed that a "primitive" nervous system upgraded to a nervous system with a brain. That has been shown to be impossible. 2) "Selective pressures" actually means that organisms with a "primitive" nervous system somehow were forced to develop a brain. There is no science behind what amounts to a belief in self-upgrading. 3) The "ecological niche" is fiction. Again, it is assumed that "upgrading" took place as if a goal was chosen. 4) Organisms with a "primitive" nervous system did fine. They needed to eat today, not wait for a very long time for a more complex nervous system or brain. "... like the decentralized nervous nets that are found today in jellyfish or sea anemones." So, "primitive" nervous systems are still around. And they work just fine.relatd_{February 18, 2023
February
02
Feb
18
18
2023
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

AnimatedDust @60
All unanswerable questions to those who cling desperately to this pathetic worldview.
"Pathetic" is the correct term. As I see it, on this forum, materialists lose each and every argument. The subject hardly matters, philosophy, biology, cosmology you name it. The materialist is always spouting nonsense and is without exception wrong. It is indeed truly pathetic.Origenes_{February 18, 2023
February
02
Feb
18
18
2023
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

BA @64 Not even one single novel protein fold! To expect a random process to search sequence space and arrive at one that folds is so highly improbable, it will likely never occur in multiple universes. The weird thing is, as Douglas Axe noted, that materialists didn’t exactly put “out of business” signs on their doors when he published his results. The question is why didn't they? And here we have one babbling about people "seriously working in neural evolution."Origenes_{February 18, 2023
February
02
Feb
18
18
2023
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT}

PyrrhoManiac1 @62,
Perhaps this parallels the difference between ID and creationism: ID is committed to a methodological ‘designism’ (hopefully a neologism so ugly will not catch on) whereas creationism is committed a metaphysical designism?
Yes, I'd agree with that distinction. As I mentioned before regarding the human brain, a fundamental question is whether it functions more like a self-contained programmable calculator or more like an app connected to the internet, where the internet connects to a transcendent mind (sorta like a first-person video game or The Matrix). -QQuerius_{February 18, 2023
February
02
Feb
18
18
2023
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

"Instead, they would take the right questions to be: 1. what functional structures did organisms have prior to the evolution of brains,,,," HUH? What? Wait a cotton picking second! How about the first question being, "is it even scientifically feasible for evolution to create brains, or anything else, for that matter?"
"The immediate, most important implication is that complexes with more than two different binding sites-ones that require three or more proteins-are beyond the edge of evolution, past what is biologically reasonable to expect Darwinian evolution to have accomplished in all of life in all of the billion-year history of the world. The reasoning is straightforward. The odds of getting two independent things right are the multiple of the odds of getting each right by itself. So, other things being equal, the likelihood of developing two binding sites in a protein complex would be the square of the probability for getting one: a double CCC, 10^20 times 10^20, which is 10^40. There have likely been fewer than 10^40 cells in the world in the last 4 billion years, so the odds are against a single event of this variety in the history of life. It is biologically unreasonable." - Michael Behe - The Edge of Evolution - page 146 Michael Behe - Observed (1 in 10^20) Edge of Evolution - video - Lecture delivered in April 2015 at Colorado School of Mines 25:56 minute quote - "This is not an argument anymore that Darwinism cannot make complex functional systems; it is an observation that it does not." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9svV8wNUqvA "Enzyme Families -- Shared Evolutionary History or Shared Design?" - Ann Gauger - December 4, 2014 Excerpt: If enzymes can't be recruited to genuinely new functions by unguided means, no matter how similar they are, the evolutionary story is false.,,, Taken together, since we found no enzyme that was within one mutation of cooption, the total number of mutations needed is at least four: one for duplication, one for over-production, and two or more single base changes. The waiting time required to achieve four mutations is 10^15 years. That's longer than the age of the universe. The real waiting time is likely to be much greater, since the two most likely candidate enzymes failed to be coopted by double mutations. We have now addressed two objections raised by our critics: that we didn't test the right mutation(s), and that we didn't use the right starting point. We tested all possible single base changes in nine different enzymes, Those nine enzymes are the most structurally similar of BioF's entire family We also tested 70 percent of double mutations in the two closest enzymes of those nine. Finally, some have said we should have used the ancestral enzyme as our starting point, because they believe modern enzymes are somehow different from ancient ones. Why do they think that? It's because modern enzymes can't be coopted to anything except trivial changes in function. In other words, they don't evolve! That is precisely the point we are making. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/12/a_new_paper_fro091701.html Right of Reply: Our Response to Jerry Coyne - September 29, 2019 by Günter Bechly, Brian Miller and David Berlinski Excerpt: David Gelernter observed that amino acid sequences that correspond to functional proteins are remarkably rare among the “space” of all possible combinations of amino acid sequences of a given length. Protein scientists call this set of all possible amino acid sequences or combinations “amino acid sequence space” or “combinatorial sequence space.” Gelernter made reference to this concept in his review of Meyer and Berlinski’s books. He also referenced the careful experimental work by Douglas Axe who used a technique known as site-directed mutagenesis to assess the rarity of protein folds in sequence space while he was working at Cambridge University from 1990-2003. Axe showed that the ratio of sequences in sequence space that will produce protein folds to sequences that won’t is prohibitively and vanishingly small. Indeed, in an authoritative paper published in the Journal of Molecular Biology Axe estimated that ratio at 1 in 10^74. From that information about the rarity of protein folds in sequence space, Gelernter—like Axe, Meyer and Berlinski—has drawn the rational conclusion: finding a novel protein fold by a random search is implausible in the extreme. Not so, Coyne argued. Proteins do not evolve from random sequences. They evolve by means of gene duplication. By starting from an established protein structure, protein evolution had a head start. This is not an irrational position, but it is anachronistic. Indeed, Harvard mathematical biologist Martin Nowak has shown that random searches in sequence space that start from known functional sequences are no more likely to enter regions in sequence space with new protein folds than searches that start from random sequences. The reason for this is clear: random searches are overwhelmingly more likely to go off into a non-folding, non-functional abyss than they are to find a novel protein fold. Why? Because such novel folds are so extraordinarily rare in sequence space. Moreover, as Meyer explained in Darwin’s Doubt, as mutations accumulate in functional sequences, they will inevitably destroy function long before they stumble across a new protein fold. Again, this follows from the extreme rarity (as well as the isolation) of protein folds in sequence space. Recent work by Weizmann Institute protein scientist Dan Tawfik has reinforced this conclusion. Tawfik’s work shows that as mutations to functional protein sequences accumulate, the folds of those proteins become progressively more thermodynamically and structurally unstable. Typically, 15 or fewer mutations will completely destroy the stability of known protein folds of average size. Yet, generating (or finding) a new protein fold requires far more amino acid sequence changes than that. Finally, calculations based on Tawfik’s work confirm and extend the applicability of Axe’s original measure of the rarity of protein folds. These calculations confirm that the measure of rarity that Axe determined for the protein he studied is actually representative of the rarity for large classes of other globular proteins. Not surprisingly, Dan Tawfik has described the origination of a truly novel protein or fold as “something like close to a miracle.” Tawfik is on Coyne’s side: He is mainstream. https://quillette.com/2019/09/29/right-of-reply-our-response-to-jerry-coyne/
bornagain77_{February 18, 2023
February
02
Feb
18
18
2023
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

@56
Before the brain existed in any creature, how did evolution know or decide to make one? Why would it work toward this goal? Why would it make something that did not yet exist? Unguided evolution is unguided, but here, it is portrayed as having goals and intelligence. It has foresight – according to some here..
Just to point out that no one seriously working in neural evolution would take those to be good questions to ask. Instead, they would take the right questions to be: 1. what functional structures did organisms have prior to the evolution of brains, and what did those organisms use those functional structures to do? 2. what selective pressures did those organisms face? 3. what ecological niches were opened up by having brain-controlled behavior? 4. how did brain-controlled behavior give those organisms a selective advantage in the environments in which they lived? Based on what we know about organisms today and the limited traces of the fossil record, the first organisms with brains were probably simple burrowing marine worms of the early Cambrian. Their precursors, the bizarre, almost plant-like animals of the Ediacran, probably did not have brains, but probably more like the decentralized nervous nets that are found today in jellyfish or sea anemones.PyrrhoManiac1_{February 18, 2023
February
02
Feb
18
18
2023
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

@57 Methodological vitalism (which is Walsh's term) is pretty much what Origenes is referring to with their reference to Talbott's "Unbearable Wholeness of Beings": to understand something as an organism is to understand it as a hierarchically organized unity driven to maintain homeostasis with its environment. The main difference (I think) between Walsh and Talbott is that Walsh sees this as a methodological commitment, a heuristic needed for asking the right questions in biological research. By contrast, I think, Talbott sees this as more of a metaphysical commitment. He's much more sympathetic to the idea of German Romanticism (which is an influence on him via Coleridge) that there really is something ontologically special about life. Perhaps this parallels the difference between ID and creationism: ID is committed to a methodological 'designism' (hopefully a neologism so ugly will not catch on) whereas creationism is committed a metaphysical designism?PyrrhoManiac1_{February 18, 2023
February
02
Feb
18
18
2023
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT}

How about, any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology?kairosfocus_{February 18, 2023
February
02
Feb
18
18
2023
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT}

Relatd @56: Precisely. All unanswerable questions to those who cling desperately to this pathetic worldview.AnimatedDust_{February 18, 2023
February
02
Feb
18
18
2023
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

An organism is a mysterious unity instantiated in matter: 1.) Hierarchical organization (parts are functional to the whole/unity). 2.) Self-organization (homeostasis). 3.) .... Stephen Talbott, quote from The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings:
Think first of a living dog, then of a decomposing corpse. At the moment of death, all the living processes normally studied by the biologist rapidly disintegrate. The corpse remains subject to the same laws of physics and chemistry as the live dog, but now, with the cessation of life, we see those laws strictly in their own terms, without anything the life scientist is distinctively concerned about. The dramatic change in his descriptive language as he moves between the living and the dead tells us just about everything we need to know. No biologist who had been speaking of the behavior of the living dog will now speak in the same way of the corpse’s “behavior.” Nor will he refer to certain physical changes in the corpse as reflexes, just as he will never mention the corpse’s responses to stimuli, or the functions of its organs, or the processes of development being undergone by the decomposing tissues. Virtually the same collection of molecules exists in the canine cells during the moments immediately before and after death. But after the fateful transition no one will any longer think of genes as being regulated, nor will anyone refer to normal or proper chromosome functioning. No molecules will be said to guide other molecules to specific targets, and no molecules will be carrying signals, which is just as well because there will be no structures recognizing signals. Code, information, and communication, in their biological sense, will have disappeared from the scientist’s vocabulary. The corpse will not produce errors in chromosome replication or in any other processes, and neither will it attempt error correction or the repair of damaged parts. More generally, the ideas of injury and healing will be absent. Molecules will not recruit other molecules in order to achieve particular tasks. No structures will inherit features from parent structures in the way that daughter cells inherit traits or tendencies from their parents, and no one will cite the plasticity or context-dependence of the corpse’s adaptation to its environment.
Origenes_{February 18, 2023
February
02
Feb
18
18
2023
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT}

Relatd: Researchers are hoping to find some chemical combination that just happened to become alive. What is your definition of 'alive'? If I gave you an object how would you decide if it was alive or not?JVL_{February 18, 2023
February
02
Feb
18
18
2023
01:44 AM
1
01
44
AM
PDT}

PyrrhoManiac1 @55 I'm unfamiliar with either Denis Walsh or his “methodological vitalism.” Broadly speaking, MV and ID sound functionally identical, except that MV introduces two undefined terms that raise the following questions: 1. Do organisms have "goals"? 2. Do organisms have "purposive behavior" Then, definitions for the terms need to be introduced. But even when they are, MV leaves open the issue of maintaining ecosystems in equilibrium, which are hard to include in various organisms' goals and purposive behavior. You might think of an ecosystem as a transcending, meta organism. As you might know, the majority of computer simulations of ecosystems oscillate with growing amplitude and then they crash, dramatically reducing the carrying capacity of the ecosystem. In stark contrast, consider what would happen if all your organs were in constant competition for as much energy and resources as each organ could possibly get. The ID definition seems simpler, but the downside is that provides the opportunity to many skeptics to assert that ID tacitly assumes a God of some kind, thus conflating ID with Creationism, which it doesn't and isn't. -QQuerius_{February 17, 2023
February
02
Feb
17
17
2023
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT}

ID is more than that. Before the brain existed in any creature, how did evolution know or decide to make one? Why would it work toward this goal? Why would it make something that did not yet exist? Unguided evolution is unguided, but here, it is portrayed as having goals and intelligence. It has foresight - according to some here. The Intelligent in Intelligent Design means an intelligence outside of evolution established the goals, the direction of the development of living things. Biological research can only observe and work with living things that exist today. Soft tissue from the past is rare. And Origin of Life Researchers are hoping to find some chemical combination that just happened to become alive. How? And if they assume that inorganic chemicals somehow combined to create organic components, they are assuming that for no reason, these chemicals self-upgraded? The barriers to increased complexity, to the first living thing, have been shown to be too great.relatd_{February 17, 2023
February
02
Feb
17
17
2023
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT}

@54
ID rests pragmatically on the proposition that studying unknown biological structures and processes AS IF they were intelligently designed is more scientifically productive than the Darwinist assumption that everything is random junk, some of which has been subjected to natural selection and has at least marginal utility.
Is there a difference that makes a difference between 1. studying unknown biological structures and processes AS IF they were intelligently designed and 2. studying unknown biological structures and processes AS IF they have functions that contribute to the organism's goals and purposive behavior I ask because I think that (2) is the right way to go -- it's what Denis Walsh calls "methodological vitalism." What does (1) add that (2) lacks, and how does that addition guide productive biological research?PyrrhoManiac1_{February 17, 2023
February
02
Feb
17
17
2023
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT}

PyrrhoManiac1 @53,
The ID version is: “The human body is far more advanced than the most advanced technology currently in existence. The odds of human beings creating something so complex, including the brain, is above improbable.”
You’re conflating Creationism with Intelligent Design. ID takes no position on the SOURCE of the design or the information embedded in the design. ID rests pragmatically on the proposition that studying unknown biological structures and processes AS IF they were intelligently designed is more scientifically productive than the Darwinist assumption that everything is random junk, some of which has been subjected to natural selection and has at least marginal utility. Examples of Darwinist failures include the fact that the so-called vestigial organs of a century ago (including ductless glands such as the thyroid) are not vestiges of evolution, and more recently, the so-called “junk DNA” is functional after all.
On one interpretation, this is clearly true: we have no idea how to design and build a machine that exhibits human-level intelligence. The project of artificial general intelligence (AGI) has so far been a colossal failure. Not only that, but no one even agrees on why it’s been a failure. (I have my own suspicions, of course!)
Late last century, I visited a famous research facility where I was shown their experiments in creating arrays of artificial synapses. When I was there, they candidly told me that the project yielded no interesting results. However in a later project, I’ve heard that different researchers were able to recreate a mechanical cockroach that used AI to train itself from external stimuli, including the ability to walk. However, I don’t believe any NEW information was generated, but rather that the existing programming enabled rule-based information to be applied to a new environment.
However, it’s less clear to me how this inference is supposed to go:
Openness and humble admission of temporary ignorance is the first and essential step in acquiring knowledge.
(1) We have no idea how to design and build a machine with human-level intelligence. (2) Therefore, it is extremely probable that we are ourselves were designed by a being with an intelligence far exceeding our own. There are some missing steps between (1) and (2), to say the least!
Yes, exactly! So, what are the possible immediate external sources of design and information? a. An unspecified God or gods including Yahweh, Allah, Brahma, Zeus, and so on. The plethora of charlatans, phonies, hopefuls, and insane aside, how would we ever be certain enough to play “You bet your life” on the identity of such a being or beings? How likely is it that such a being or beings who created humanity, the earth, and the universe have an actual purpose in doing so and some interest in the outcome? b. Some sort of advanced alien intellect that came into being several billion years before humanity. Such aliens might have experimented with life on earth-like planets. How likely is it that there is far more advanced and far less advanced life in the universe? c. Humans in the future who created an “ancestor simulation,” within which we’re living. This would be similar to first-person characters in videogames or “The Matrix.” https://u.osu.edu/vanzandt/2018/04/18/ancestor-simulations/ d. That some hidden property in the universe that makes everything conscious to greater and lesser degrees. This is termed panpsychism. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/ e. Something I haven’t thought of. -QQuerius_{February 17, 2023
February
02
Feb
17
17
2023
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

@48
The ID version is: “The human body is far more advanced than the most advanced technology currently in existence. The odds of human beings creating something so complex, including the brain, is above improbable.”
On one interpretation, this is clearly true: we have no idea how to design and build a machine that exhibits human-level intelligence. The project of artificial general intelligence (AGI) has so far been a colossal failure. Not only that, but no one even agrees on why it's been a failure. (I have my own suspicions, of course!) However, it's less clear to me how this inference is supposed to go:
(1) We have no idea how to design and build a machine with human-level intelligence. (2) Therefore, it is extremely probable that we are ourselves were designed by a being with an intelligence far exceeding our own.
There are some missing steps between (1) and (2), to say the least! @52
There is a great gulf fixed between physics and chemistry, and biology. Between inanimate matter and life. It is bridged with information. Information requires a mind. Why is this so difficult to grasp? Inquiring minds want to know. And so do I?
I would say that, firstly, it's just not clear that information requires a mind. It could be just as true that minds require information. The fact that we are minded beings that process semantic information doesn't show that therefore all semantic information originates in a mind. Intelligent design is not mistaken when it reasons:
(1) We, as minded beings, have the capacity to detect, use, and create semantic information. (2) Biological information is semantic information. (3) Therefore, it is possible that biological semantic information was created by a minded being of some sort.
in which case (3) becomes a hypothesis to be investigated, and that could be confirmed if there's sufficient evidence for it. But ID is quite badly mistaken when it reasons:
(1) We, as minded beings, have the capacity to detect, use, and create semantic information. (2) Biological information is semantic information. (3') Therefore it must be the case that biological information was created by a minded being of some sort.
In this case, (3') is taken as a definitive conclusion rather than as a hypothesis that could be tested. To be sure, we would need a rival hypothesis against which to test the hypothesis that a mind is required to create biological semantic information. We would need a "naturalistic" explanation for the origin of semantic information. As one candidate for such an explanation, see Semantic information, autonomous agency, and nonequilibrium statistical physics by Kolchinsky and Wolpert.PyrrhoManiac1_{February 17, 2023
February
02
Feb
17
17
2023
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT}

There is a great gulf fixed between physics and chemistry, and biology. Between inanimate matter and life. It is bridged with information. Information requires a mind. Why is this so difficult to grasp? Inquiring minds want to know. And so do I?tgpeeler_{February 16, 2023
February
02
Feb
16
16
2023
10:17 PM
10
10
17
PM
PDT}

Relatd @50, Yes, certainly. In some fields, what you described are called behavioral specifications. .
As far as manufacturing, there is a fake term called “additive manufacturing.” It describes nothing.
I have to disagree. Additive manufacturing is most certainly not a fake term. There are about a half dozen practical AM technologies currently in use. Each of them have advantages and disadvantages, but they can manufacture things that are otherwise impossible for conventional CNC or casting methods. At typical quantities, the cost-per-unit is lower and design modifications are far less expensive. Check this out: https://cdn.redshift.autodesk.com/2019/09/1generative-manufacturing-header1.jpg And then this: https://3dprint.com/118059/3d-printed-bone-implants/ And this: https://www.3dsourced.com/guides/3d-printed-liver/ -QQuerius_{February 16, 2023
February
02
Feb
16
16
2023
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PDT}

Querius at 49, Industrial Design is something I've studied. It depends on what is being designed. I'll present an example: Your assignment is to design an electromagnetic sensor. Here are the required dimensions. Here is a list of components. The weight should be between one and two pounds. This device needs to operate in the following temperature range. It can be used indoors and outdoors. It should be impact resistant. The read-out should be large (see standard read-out dimensions). Controls should be minimal. You have 3 days to present design samples. From these, two or three final candidates will be chosen subject to the approval of the project leader. There is no easy way to do this. The designers need to see the components. I could have written 'shopping cart' or something else. The designers will usually reference similar equipment and get answers to any questions they might have about the suitability of components. The biggest problems are making sure the components fit comfortably inside the device and that the maximum weight is not exceeded. Once a design is chosen, they should all know how to select the best material for the outer case, with alternatives. And details matter. The color of the outer case should reflect a 'easy to find if dropped in tall grass or wherever it will be used' awareness. They have to picture themselves holding and using the device and design accordingly. Sure, there are computer design programs that will help but it's not drop in the numbers and out comes the best design in a few minutes. And even if computer programs appear that will speed things up, the client may reject any designs submitted. The design team may know a lot about producing hardware that will work but the person or organization paying for it has the right to say 'no, try again,' Or 'I want you to prototype this one' - which everyone on the team thought was not the best way to go, but the client gets the final say. I did not mention what type of battery was going in the device. ALL of the details matter. Once ordered into production, the final product has to work as advertised and be well-liked by those who will actually use it. As far as manufacturing, there is a fake term called "additive manufacturing." It describes nothing. It is now possible to make parts for small devices using what I call small-batch manufacturing techniques. In some cases, metal does not have to be heated and molds do not have to be made as they were 20 or 30 years ago. This is also true for some aerospace components. But the machines to make parts larger than what can be held in your hand are very expensive, but the trade-off involves using a machine that is computer-controlled and that can make say, 100 pieces as opposed to 1,000 or more since the cost of making that component would be cost-prohibitive using traditional manufacturing methods. Nothing can be grown.relatd_{February 16, 2023
February
02
Feb
16
16
2023
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT}

Pyrromaniac1 and Relatd, The problem with current approaches to OOL is that they are indeed too magical. The historical fascination with mysticism and alchemy is analogous to where OOL science is today, because mystics and alchemists were clueless regarding what they were dealing with.
Maybe the ID version would be, “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from biology.”
Good point. For example, what if someone discovers how to literally grow automobile or aircraft components? Current solutions created using generative design technology does indeed look more and more biological! Try doing a search on generative design images. For example https://i.all3dp.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/28115344/generative-design-allow-the-exploration-of-design-eric-baldwin-via-archdaily-200716.jpg -QQuerius_{February 16, 2023
February
02
Feb
16
16
2023
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

PM1 at 47, The ID version is: "The human body is far more advanced than the most advanced technology currently in existence. The odds of human beings creating something so complex, including the brain, is above improbable."relatd_{February 16, 2023
February
02
Feb
16
16
2023
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

@46 I've been thinking a lot about Arthur C. Clarke's adage, "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Maybe the ID version would be, "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from biology."PyrrhoManiac1_{February 16, 2023
February
02
Feb
16
16
2023
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply