> None of these steps need a reader, so perhaps they can form an initial and very inefficient life(almost-life) form.
May I ask, have you ever considered if any of these systems that you're researching or investigating are the product of deliberate engineering rather than random chance?
Theorising that high carbon steel can form by mistake in some scenarios is no where even remotely close to the information management necessary to spontaneously create a tesla.
And even a Tesla is no where remotely close to the organic cell. The smallest known functional, and most importantly, stable biological unit.
A really good book about circadian rhythms called "Life Time" was just released. Fascinating read if you're interested in it and it goes into details about the way we got to the western model of sleep. And challenges some of the assumptions that sleep must be continuous throughout the night to be good sleep.
Was interesting to read that in the middle ages their literature and records referenced a "first sleep" and "second sleep" in which it was common for people to sleep after dinner, get up again, do some things, and then sleep till morning!
If you deleted a resource block from a previously applied terraform declaration and reapplied it, how would the provider know that the resource in the environment needed to be deleted verses accepting it as an object not managed by terraform?
Where would it store it's history to make the diff against it?
>Undoubtedly much of it could be pruned out with no undesirable result
Such hubris as this is what led us to:
- define DNA we didn't and still don't understand as useless "junk"
- call the appendix a useless vestigial organ
- declared "silenced" b-cells useless
The list goes on and on and on... When will somebody compile a list of how often science is wrong just to slap the arrogance out of people before they cost more time and lives with such reckless and impatient reasoning?
It's interesting how the pendulum of ideas swings back and forth over history, similar problems arise and similar solutions to them resurface also. It would be great to see that on some kind go graph or timeline.
Have you considered an alternative world view? While it's true that we experience nothing while we die, there are good reasons to believe that that this life we have on Earth isn't accurately explained by purely materialistic means.
Most people think of heaven when it comes to the Bible's view of life after death, but it speaks more about a resurrection from the dead for the vast majority of people who die, to live forever on a paradise Earth.
There is something in us that makes us yearn for more than the short lives we have now (hardly anybody would choose to die if they had good health under normal circumstances), so these do resonate with us more than a purely materialistic world view, which has ostensibly left people with lack of contentment and sense of purpose.
I'm honestly taken aback by how middle of the road you are about that situation.
In what world is it a good thing that instead of accepting an offer to provide a needed service that you're in the business of, you refuse the offer and sue/lobby the requester into submission out of spite.
About this:
> None of these steps need a reader, so perhaps they can form an initial and very inefficient life(almost-life) form.
May I ask, have you ever considered if any of these systems that you're researching or investigating are the product of deliberate engineering rather than random chance?