[FRIAM] lurking

[uǝlƃ ☤>$]

Yeah, I agree. But context is Queen. When the virus is created in the lab, it's done with real stuff distilled from the soupy world. Given enough of a difference in context, the robot may not be able to re-constitute the life because the soupy world surrounding the robot doesn't have the real stuff required. Such drastic context changes could be a result of translation through space or time. E.g. trying to construct, on Mars, an organism read/serialized on earth. Or e.g. trying to construct an organism read millennia ago, millennia in the future. It's naive to talk about "science" as if any given read-out formula thereby expressed is *complete*. Science is abstraction to a large extent ... maybe not as abstracting as math, of course. And science must remain "open" precisely because any formula it expresses is suspect, perhaps incomplete.

My favorite example is the magic brewing stick: https://medievalmeadandbeer.wordpress.com/2019/05/04/scandinavian-yeast-logs-yeast-rings/ It *was* scientific to lay out the magic stick as a critical element of the brewing process, only to discover later that the stick isn't the important part.

On 11/2/21 2:39 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Even if that were so, viruses have been pulled from history or tweaked and created in the lab.   So we have a design specification, and the means to make it.    One could imagine a robot fabricating the close-to-the-metal machine too.   There is a story one can write down how it is done.   If there is no story, it is not science we are talking about, it is something else.  


-- 
"Better to be slapped with the truth than kissed with a lie."
☤>$ uǝlƃ