As I mentioned before, enantiomers are an example of chemical substances which differ in organization, but not on every physical property (same state equation applies to them, for instance). So, no, intermolecular forces do not depend on the organization of the molecules.
Not being a chemist, I look up “enantiomer” and see it means mirror image, and I think “well, that won’t change the mass or the physical forces, so the boiling point won’t change”. Reading on, I learn that my prediction is correct.
It’s like watching a movie of a planet going around a star. It looks the same whether the movie is playing forwards or in reverse. The mass of the planet is the same, the forces are the same, just reflected. So yes, of course forces depend on the organization, but not on something as trivial.
I’m intrigued why you keep arguing this. Given that all molecules are made of atoms and all atoms from the same components, what do you think masses and forces could possible depend on other than organization?
It seems that somehow you see the necessity of an additional principle, besides matter, but you haven’t thought how it has to work.
Err… as I’ve said all along, organization. I’ve kept saying it, I keep saying it, it’s basic physics of chemistry.
*What is the limit between reasoning and “speculation”? There are some phenomena which can be explained by means of **a model ***in which the atom is almost empty space. Other phenomena has required physicists to propose “jiggling quarks”. Are physicists looking for the “arché” of the universe? What is space-time? Is string theory an speculation? Does “mind” emerge from space-time?
Richard Feynman in a lecture: *"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature, or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.
If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong.
In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”*
Spacetime is a geometric continuum that includes the three dimensions of space and a forth dimension of time. Experimental evidence includes GPS, amongst others, as referenced earlier. String theory is a guess for which there as yet is no experimental evidence, and so is misnamed (it’s only a hypothesis). Don’t know what you mean by mind emerging from spacetime, sounds a bit New Age.
Where does “speculation” start? Or which speculation is allowed and which is not? Or on which subjects is speculation allowed and on which it is not? Or who is allowed to speculate and who is not?
The OED defines hypothesis as a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation, and speculation as the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.
I’ve said that mind emerging from brain is a hypothesis, an hypothesis actively being investigated by many researchers across the world.
I could not call ISS an hypothesis, since no one has produced even limited evidence for it, and from this thread it appears that it has never been the starting point for any investigation either.
*Yes! We are much more slower than the cheapest computer! And we forget things as well: we forget, for example, that we designed those computers, and that we programmed them. It is strange, isn’t it?
While we have to read the (name removed by moderator)uts, interpret them, compare what we have gotten at each step against the rules, look for possible relations among the elements to simplify our intermediate results and proceed further, etcetera (in the same lapse of time we remember our girlfriend, other pending activities, judge the quality of the surrounding music, worry about the tax increases…) , the cheap computer does nothing. It just serves as a set of channels for the (name removed by moderator)uts which follow a determined set of paths to give a determined set of outputs. You would probably say that the computer features circuits which are able, for example, to execute comparisons. I would respond that those are nothing else but electric paths, which I have already mentioned.
There is also a difference between a response, and the feeling that one has responded.
So, I will restate the question: considering the whole human species -which could not learn logic from another species- is logic originally a set of brain structures?*
I want to try to understand why you keep asking this question.
The OED defines logic as reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
Where do you think those principles of validity come from? Do you think they are buried deep in the structure of your mind and as such are not available for inspection, even in principle, that we must forever take them as just existing while never being able to prove they are valid?
Or do you think the principles were originally learned by trial and error, that what is valid was sifted from what isn’t by evidence and experience, and then passed down from one generation to the next?
Or do you have some other explanation?
\