On Creating Imaginary Worlds: Questions and Answers

[Ursa major]

If a system is very sensitive to its start conditions, and if we also live in a universe where start conditions - at a quantum level - cannot be determined (which is the current hypothesis), how can the result be predetermined?

Where systems are not so sensitive, our approximate knowledge of the start conditions allows us to estimate the end result so that we can make practical use of it.

[Ruin]

Whether or not we can actually determine something ourselves is irrelevant, this does not make it deterministic or not, it is simply a reflection of our inability to calculate to that level. For example, just because we cannot see half the universe does not mean it isn't there. Regardless on whether or not we can determine the quantum level of matter, this level still determines the end result.

[Ursa major]

This thread is in the Aspiring Writers forum, not Science/Nature; so even if I agreed with your argument (which I don't), it would not colour my response to the question at hand.

The story idea that we were looking at presupposed the preprogramming of genomes to produce specific (and similar) creatures many (perhaps hundreds) of millions of years in the future on a number of different planets.

• One pro argument stated (if I may condense it a little) that the amount of information held in a genome can be much greater than we currently assume; it could therefore be used to produce the required effect, i.e. intelligent saurians on all of these worlds.
• One counter argument was that the way evolution works and the way it interacts with the environment both act against the kind of predictability required to achieve this outcome in the story. (This argument assumes that intelligence is rare, so that merely creating an "Age of Dinosaurs" on each of these worlds is not enough.)

It is the ability to guarantee a number of predetermined outcomes that is in dispute in this part of the thread. (Well, I'm disputing it. )

[Ruin]

Sorry, I was arguing against your argument, rather then against the refutation of the idea.

Evolution is not effected at all by the genetic code of an organism (simplification of course, but near-to-nothing), simply firing an organism with the right genetic code at a different planet will only produce a lifeform based on the same material (for Terran creatures, carbon and DNA based), not the same creature. When it comes to evolution it is conditions which is the deterministic factor, not genomes.

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by Ruin

Sorry, I was arguing against your argument, rather then against the refutation of the idea.

There's no need to apologise - we've all jumped into the middle of a thread before now. (Some of us - and I hold my hand up on this - have done it many times. )

Originally Posted by Ruin

When it comes to evolution it is conditions which is the deterministic factor, not genomes.

Needless to say, I agree with you on this.

[RodneyMcKay]

Doesn't Laplace's Demon say something about being able to determine the future? Not 100% sure of that one so don't beat me up about it.

[Mica]

Would it be ok to have a lake at the base of a mountain range? The lake is around 140 miles at its widest point. I'm trying to put some obstacles in my characters path that they will have to go around (I'm nice like that ).

[Zubi-Ondo]

Not only would it be okay... Its quite natural to have lakes at the bottom of a mountain range, assuming your world has gravity. 140 miles is rather large though, so I would guess it would have to be a very large mountain range, and possibly one that surrounds the lake in some fashion (not completely surrounds it necessarily). Maybe a crescent shaped mountain range or something.

- Z.

[Mica]

Thanks for the help Zubi.

I like the idea of the crescent shaped mountain range surrounding some of the lake & looking at my map it would mean the lake wouldn't have to be quite so big.

An alternative obstacle I was thinking of is to have an inland delta. Do they only occur in certain climates? I'm wondering if having one would it affect the flora and fauna and other geological phenomenon that could/should occur in the country as well?

[lin robinson]

When it comes to evolution it is conditions which is the deterministic factor, not genomes.

And that's how characteristics emerge that didn't previously exist? To meet the demands of conditions?

[lin robinson]

Do they only occur in certain climates?

That's an interesting question. No reason they should, but they seem to, don't they?
Which might mean there is a reason, but we aren't aware of it.

[Zubi-Ondo]

Originally Posted by Mica

Thanks for the help Zubi.

No problem.

Originally Posted by Mica

An alternative obstacle I was thinking of is to have an inland delta. Do they only occur in certain climates? I'm wondering if having one would it affect the flora and fauna and other geological phenomenon that could/should occur in the country as well?

If you go by the following definition:
River delta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It would most likely imply that it is a fairly warm climate for the sediments to form, or possibly that they would form more readily in a warmer climate. It is not to say that you cant have deltas caused by ice formations in cold areas, but those might be much less permanent. You can also have rivers that have a very wide mouth without the deposits. Some of those are called estuaries. You can also have freshwater or inland deltas, or lakes caused by dams.

- Z.

[Anthony G Williams]

Originally Posted by lin robinson

And that's how characteristics emerge that didn't previously exist? To meet the demands of conditions?

No, the new characteristics emerge through random mutation. It's the environment which determines whether these mutations are beneficial or not (they usually aren't).

[Anthony G Williams]

Originally Posted by Zubi-Ondo

No problem.


If you go by the following definition:
River delta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It would most likely imply that it is a fairly warm climate for the sediments to form, or possibly that they would form more readily in a warmer climate.

No, the factors which lead to delta formation have nothing to do with climate. Sediment is carried downstream by all rivers (the faster they flow, the more they can carry), and deposited at the river mouth as the flow slows down on hitting the sea or lake water. The main factor which leads to delta formation is the lack of a big tidal range or strong offshore currents which would otherwise sweep the sediment away from the river mouth. It also helps if the sea or lake is quite shallow around the river mouth.

[Hilarious Joke]

But I would imagine that erosion would occur in a hotter climate with less rain leading to looser and dry soils so more sediment collects in the water (this happens in the Murray-Darling river system in Australia).