The Fremi Paradox is simple to state: Given the laws of the physical universe, where are the other intelligent life-forms? Why haven't we heard from them?
They should be quite numerous; and even our (presumed) primitive technology should be able to detect signals propagated by their earlier states of achievement…
Yet we've neither seen nor heard…anything.
A new approach to solving this riddle appears in the CERN Courier (http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/59937).
This is a commendable example of statistical reasoning gone awry. The size of the universe guarantees galaxies hosting countless solar systems which should host planets hospitable to life. Their number is staggeringly huge, and should make intelligent life fairly common.
Certainly, not rare.
But statistical reasoning always rests upon premises…
Hence, the paper referred to in the CERN Courier article which quantifies the frequency of Gamma Ray Bursts — on a scale of millions of years (and thence my cryptic post title: Myr is the common abbreviation of "million years") alters our understanding of the physical laws of the universe in a crucial way:
It reminds us of how much we don't know…and how much we take for granted.
Of course there's intelligent life out there. We know they're intelligent because as soon as they heard our radio signals, they decided to leave us alone.
Spice is poison http://www.aapcc.org/alerts/synthetic-marijuana/
I waited a few hours… I should now be convinced that science is something no one here is interested in. (Likewise, mathematics.*)
Isn't the GRB frequency and its virulence well documented?
—————————————————————————————————————
* I heard my great-nephew tell his younger brother on the playground that 4, his sibling's age, was a non-awesome number! I mentioned to him (and others) that 4 was the FIRST square number… Quite awesome!
And 7, his age. was the only the 4th prime number… There's 4 again! As an ordinal.
Numeracy is a proclivity to be encouraged, I think.
It would please me, if these children can -eventually- keep up with me, when it comes to various computational memes… :)
From the CERN Courier,
Some scientists have proposed that a GRB could have been at the origin of the Ordovician extinction some 450 Myr ago, which wiped out 80% of the species on Earth.
Maybe it's time to another Ordovician thing.
Oak, what do you want? Life on other planets has the same problem (as far as we're concerned) as the existence or lack thereof of God does. Namely, given present technology, how do you prove or disprove it?
We can conjecture and offer theories and wild guesses, even draw fanciful images of what life on X-23867 might look like, but without any proof that it does or does not exist--- all we're doing is science fiction, not actual science.
Maybe one day we'll have starships equipped with warp drive so we can go to other planets and see for ourselves--- actual science, seeing, listening, smelling, taking measurements and so on. Right now--- we look at "Star Trek" and imagine what it might be like. Close as we can get with present technology.
Yet we've neither seen nor heard…anything.
A possible explanation from the Nebula Award-nominated short story, “They’re Made Out of Meat” by Terry Bisson:
"They're made out of meat."
"Meat?"
"Meat. They're made out of meat."
"Meat?"
"There's no doubt about it. We picked up several from different parts of the planet, took them aboard our recon vessels, and probed them all the way through. They're completely meat."
"That's impossible. What about the radio signals? The messages to the stars?"
"They use the radio waves to talk, but the signals don't come from them. The signals come from machines."
"So who made the machines? That's who we want to contact."
"They made the machines. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Meat made the machines."
"That's ridiculous. How can meat make a machine? You're asking me to believe in sentient meat."
"I'm not asking you, I'm telling you. These creatures are the only sentient race in that sector and they're made out of meat."
A little while later:"They actually do talk, then. They use words, ideas, concepts?"
"Oh, yes. Except they do it with meat."
"I thought you just told me they used radio."
"They do, but what do you think is on the radio? Meat sounds. You know how when you slap or flap meat, it makes a noise? They talk by flapping their meat at each other. They can even sing by squirting air through their meat."
"Omigod. Singing meat. This is altogether too much. So what do you advise?"
"Officially or unofficially?"
"Both."
"Officially, we are required to contact, welcome and log in any and all sentient races or multibeings in this quadrant of the Universe, without prejudice, fear or favor. Unofficially, I advise that we erase the records and forget the whole thing."
"I was hoping you would say that."
"It seems harsh, but there is a limit. Do we really want to make contact with meat?"
"I agree one hundred percent. What's there to say? 'Hello, meat. How's it going?'
Lol!! :knight: :cheers:
That there mus be life out there is just another scientific theory so that makes it okay then.
???
???
Do you really think he knows what a theory is? :left: :right:
1. This Oakdale guy must be some sort of genius!
2. This is another thread that give folks an opportunity to poke at Mr. Howie.
3. Science has nothing to say about life, or the lack thereof, elsewhere.
4. Definitive statement! The center of the universe is in the pit of your stomach, every one of you!
It reminds us of how much we don't know…and how much we take for granted.
Absolutely true, and that universe outside of our own galaxy was discovered less than 100 years ago. Nevertheless, with the exponentially increasing pace of scientific and technological discoveries, people often expect miracles from science in an instant. And when science can't produce answers fast enough to suit their liking, they criticize science for not really knowing anything. Science knows plenty, but better than any other endeavor on earth, science knows for sure that it knows nothing for sure. Science will soon answer the Fermi Paradox simply because there
exists an answer to the Fermi Paradox. :knight: :cheers:
Science will soon answer the Fermi Paradox simply because there exists an answer to the Fermi Paradox. :knight: :cheers:
Yep, that's the answer! Mystery solved! http://southpark.cc.com/clips/jd37s0/unfrozen-for-a-reason
Science will soon answer the Fermi Paradox simply because there exists an answer to the Fermi Paradox. :knight: :cheers:
Yep, that's the answer! Mystery solved! http://southpark.cc.com/clips/jd37s0/unfrozen-for-a-reason
Yer missin' da purnt thar Arsi. I ain't gots da ansa, but der gots tuh be a ansa cuz a da cauz an 'fect prinzple. We done seen da 'fect, so da cauz gotsa be out der sumwherz. De'll fine it, shur as ashootin'--ider dat er da hole primis be rong. :knight: :cheers:
De'll fine it, shur as ashootin'
That's not guaranteed.
Although it's likely they exist in my opinion, there's no reason to assume the conditions to bring intelligence or sentience are as common as we'd like to believe. Given the vast distances involved it could take longer than the life expectancy of our race to be sure. :sherlock:
Yer missin' da purnt thar Arsi. I ain't gots da ansa, but der gots tuh be a ansa cuz a da cauz an 'fect prinzple. We done seen da 'fect, so da cauz gotsa be out der sumwherz. De'll fine it, shur as ashootin'--ider dat er da hole primis be rong. :knight: :cheers:
Right. The premise is right and therefore science will find the answer (in 500 years). That's the point and there's no missing it.
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AoAJOF5GVQ[/video]
None of the data in the OP nor in the article seems new, although the article mentioned that it's a new study. Earlier studies that I can't be arsed to look up postulated a "inhabitall zone zone" for the galaxy. To close to the center and the radiation would likely wipe out all lifeforms. To far away, it's too cold.
I'm a little skeptical of those zones myself. I hear such things for the solar systems and some questions come to mine: what's the planet's atmosphere like? If it's thick enough even a planet distant from its sun could support life. What sort of life? Organism thrive on Earth with no oxygen, in superheated water by underwater thermal vents and other places that the laymen (and until recently the scientists themselves) though life was impossible. Another question would address the planet itself. Does it provide enough of a magnetosphere to deflect the GRBs. If that's the case, even intelligent life might exist in stellar neighborhoods where it shouldn't. Or even in planets with less them conditions we would consider than optimal, life might have adapted. The irony is that those lifeforms might rule out our solar system as capable of supporting life ;)
The irony is that those lifeforms might rule out our solar system as capable of supporting life ;)
Intelligent life?
For some negatives on that question, see thedndsanctuary.eu/ (https://dndsanctuary.eu/)
:jester: :jester: :jester: :jester: :jester: :jester: :jester: :jester: :jester: :jester: :jester: :jester: :jester:
The premise is right and therefore science will find the answer (in 500 years).
Probably in less than one tenth of that time they will have a much better handle on the likelihood of intelligent life elsewhere. Actually, the Fermi Paradox is a challenge to Drake's equation which is a scientific method to estimate the likelihood of intelligent life elsewhere. Even Carl Sagan in recent times said that there should be literally millions of planets in our own galaxy that could harbor highly technological civilizations. Drake's equation has even been taken to the extreme by religious intellectuals to show that the likelihood of life anywhere in the universe to be 1 in 1e+99 (10 to the 99th power), and since there are only 1e+23 planets in the universe--the likelihood of intelligent life anywhere is essentially zero and so god has to exist for us to be here. It's been debunked of course (even by religious sorts), but it made the headlines of some major newspapers.
Even if we found an exact replica of our solar system and planet Earth out there, a new model by Prof. Andrew Watson suggests the chances of intelligent life emerging would be low – less than 0.01 per cent over four billion years. Therefore, we would need to find 10,000 exact Earth replicas to expect one to have intelligent life. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080416110124.htm
Some astrophysicists now think we could be the only intelligent technological civilization in this galaxy, but since there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, there should still be plenty of intelligent life out there. If it's as easy as finding a needle in a haystack--it will be detected soon enough. :knight: :cheers:
Some astrophysicists now think we could be the only intelligent technological civilization in this galaxy, but since there are hundreds of billions of galaxies, there should still be plenty of intelligent life out there. If it's as easy as finding a needle in a haystack--it will be detected soon enough. :knight: :cheers:
This kind of scientific speculation is as helpful as DnD speculation...yours and mine. Me? I'm scientifically guessing that life's out there, some of it intelligent, some of it like us.
Just a thought, a musing if you will, based on what I've read about it over the years. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm not asking that you agree or even care. :knight: :cheers:
Edit: Humans are too new on the scene to be considered entirely smart about all things. We will get better, if e survive long enough.
Maybe it's a good thing if we don't find them/they find us.
What if they're even more warlike than we are? What if they're traveling evangelists spreading the good news about their alien (to us) god? What if we're on the menu, and we really do taste like chicken?
Sometimes the less you know, the better you sleep at night.
What if they're traveling evangelists spreading the good news about their alien (to us) god?
Just slam the door in their face like they were Jehovah Witnesses. :knight: :cheers:
Probably in less than one tenth of that time they will have a much better handle on the likelihood of intelligent life elsewhere.
Probably, very much probably, there's no other intelligent life elsewhere.
If life, especially intelligent life, is found on another planet will that mess up your religion? :knight: :cheers:
If life, especially intelligent life, is found on another planet will that mess up your religion? :knight: :cheers:
Nope. My God is big enough to handle that. If your god isn't, perhaps you need a bigger god.
The Milky Way alone is incredibly huge, more stars than can be counted (at least without using a supercomputer, not sure if even then) and a fair number of those stars occur within the zone where we think life can exist. Some of those stars may have habitable planets-- again, we don't know for sure either way-- and if a planet is habitable, God is able to put intelligent life on it if that suits His purpose.
So,--- no, it doesn't disturb my religion if intelligent life is found elsewhere.
and if a planet is habitable, God is able to put intelligent life on it if that suits His purpose.
So you don't believe life evolves?
and if a planet is habitable, God is able to put intelligent life on it if that suits His purpose.
So you don't believe life evolves?
If you want to believe you're descended from some ape in the distant past, be my guest. Since you asked---- nope. Not the way it would have to in order to make things happen the way you want to believe they did.
Given the "Intelligent life in space" debate, and the evolution question posed by JSeaton, I suppose the following cartoon sorta belongs here. History Channel has gotten a bit bizarre lately too.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FVAokXEE.jpg&hash=69351dbb92ec43bd12ee52494709829c" rel="cached" data-hash="69351dbb92ec43bd12ee52494709829c" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/VAokXEE.jpg)
Even the Catholic Church and the Pope don't deny evolution and they simply can't if they wish to remain a credible entity. To deny it seems to me a bit like denying the nose on your face. Do you think it's a scientific conspiracy of sorts? :knight: :cheers:
I don't think it's scientific.
Neither is God scientific.
==========================================================
We share 36% of our DNA with fruit flies, 98% with chimpanzees, 85% with zebra fish, 7% with bacteria, 15% with mustard grass and 21% with roundworms. Zero % with rocks.
That gives special meaning with the statement "Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle!"
What was God thinking?
If life, especially intelligent life, is found on another planet will that mess up your religion?
That sounds like just what the doctor ordered :yes: :cheers:
What if we're on the menu, and we really do taste like chicken?
Us being on the menu is the stuff of B- grade movies, such as Peter Jackson's early work. Traveling interstellar distances, while keeping themselves alive long enough to do so is non-sensible. So don't worry. Besides we don't taste like chicken. Cannibal tribes have reported that we taste more like pork ;)
I don't think it's scientific.
In what ways is evolution theory not scientific? :knight: ???
I don't think it's scientific.
In what ways is evolution theory not scientific? :knight: ???
Are you able to duplicate it in the lab? I don't mean dig up a bone somewhere and say this is the legbone of the mildewdebeast, I mean are you able to show that macroevolution actually happens. Science is able to duplicate among other things, able to show by demonstration that something you say is so is actually so.
I have yet to hear of one-- even one only-- successful experiment where life was brought forth from non-living matter in the lab--- and that this experiment, if it ever did exist, was duplicatable.
Original text. (http://www.reddit.com/r/nosleep/comments/u7zc2/the_life_in_the_machine)
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1MbioglP9k[/video]
Are you able to duplicate it in the lab?
Strangely enough, yes.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html#.VNQhcKz3fbg
A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.
And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.
Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations.
The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations, while Lenski watches what happens.
Profound change
Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.
But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations - the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.
Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.
"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.
In other words, that population became a different species. Obviously it would pretty well impossible to witness speciation of complex lifeforms in the lab, but always forget about how quickly primitive life such as bacteria go through thousands of generations. Quickly enough to witness them evolve into a different species.
I have yet to hear of one-- even one only-- successful experiment where life was brought forth from non-living matter in the lab--- and that this experiment, if it ever did exist, was duplicatable.
I'm not sure you guys really understand what you're saying here. You're saying the self-duplicating RNA and DNA molecules are impossible even if all the necessary ingredients and conditions are present and those simple lifeforms can't evolve into more complex ones as it adapts to its environment, but a being so advanced it can create a universe can appear on it's own and requires no precursors. Occam's Razor would seem to slice on science's side.
Now maybe creationism can answer where all the fossils came from, why the "missing links" are being regularly filled in.
Are you able to duplicate it in the lab? I don't mean dig up a bone somewhere and say this is the legbone of the mildewdebeast, I mean are you able to show that macroevolution actually happens. Science is able to duplicate among other things, able to show by demonstration that something you say is so is actually so.
Well, at least "science" doesn't attempt to show by demonstration that god exists, and yet, some people think it does. 'Actually' is a fuzzy concept.
Two different things here: evolution doesn't depend on abiogenesis, although it's support is useful. Even considering that God created life, evolution takes place, and has been well observed and understood.
Whether it's a fact, it's still debatable. Life as it is today can have been formed by evolution or have been created by God. Now, if it's not the result of evolution, it can be disproved some day. If it's not created by God, it will never be disproved. That's why evolution is scientific - even supposing that it hasn't been confirmed yet (although I think it has). It's a theory, and so it can be researched.
Whether it's a fact, it's still debatable. Life as it is today can have been formed by evolution or have been created by God.
When science declares that something is true or a fact it doesn't ever mean that it is true in the absolute sense, that isn't how any science works. A scientific fact is an assertion for which there is so much evidence that it would be perverse to deny it. For example only a philosopher (like Ersi perhaps), would deny that atoms exist and are the smallest recognizable part of an element. Scientific theories make predictions and once those predictions are proven true by observation and repeated experimentation by others across several lines of science
without a single failure, only then does it get so close to fact that you would have to be totally ignorant or just plain obstinate to deny it.
Evolution theory predicts that if life originated in the distant past and then evolved, we should see that the first detectable forms of life were simple and only later would more complex forms appear. This is has been proven true and confirmed not only by the fossil records but by other areas of science as well. Evolution also says that if lineages split into two or more species then it should be seen in the fossil records. Marine sediments contain the most complete record of the evolution of life on Earth and indeed 'evolution in action' can be seen best in core samples taken from the seabed where tiny hard shelled marine micro fossils simply sink to the bottom of the ocean and are preserved. A time slice can be taken by drilling a core and then analyzing it in the laboratory where this lineage splitting (speciation), can be plainly seen, documented and repeated in other laboratories using their own core samples from around the globe. An example of speciation on a larger scale can be plainly seen in the evolution of the horse which mainly occured in North America and for which they are countless fossil records going back to when an ancient ancestor of the horse had 5 toes. There are hundreds of other examples of speciation occurring if one cares to look them up. http://education.nationalgeographic.com/education/encyclopedia/speciation/?ar_a=1
Another prediction of Darwin's evolution was that all creatures share a common ancestry even though Darwin had no proof of that at the time. Therefore, we should be able to find transitional forms that connect newer groups to their common ancestors. For example, if birds and reptiles share a common ancestry then evolution would predict that there would be transitional species that show physical characteristics of both birds and reptiles. There are some very dramatic and famous fossil records of a feathered dinosaur (archaeopteryx), which you may have seen. But not only do these fossils fulfill all the requirements of a transitional species, but they also occur at the appropriate time in the fossil records, i.e. after dinosaurs disappeared and before birds appeared as well. And by the way, not a single transitional fossil record has ever been shown to be out of its time sequence.
Evolution also predicts that if speciation occurs there should be vestigial (dead or degraded), genes in newer species that no longer exhibit a particular physical characteristic from their ancestors. This is seen in the human species where a 4 week embryo starts to develop an egg sac with yolk. And when scientists looked at the human genome, lo and behold they found it contains 3 genes to make egg yolk. These genes are broken or incomplete so the egg sac and yolk never fully develop and disappear (are switched off), during later stages of fetal development. How would a creationist explain human genes to develop egg yolk (not to mention gills and a tail), other than the fact that we inherited those genes from a common ancestor, namely birds, reptiles, fish and primates? Human embryos resemble those of many other species because all animals carry very ancient genes. These genes date back to the origin of cells, which are expressed during a middle phase of embryonic development. Less than 2 per cent of the human genome is actually coding; the rest is a veritable graveyard of junk, consisting of old genes that have lost their function and various other repeat elements. Why would a divine and perfect creator do that?
Evolution is clearly scientific and proven true across numerous lines of biology and other sciences. The bottom line is that any intelligent and sufficiently educated creationist has to be exceedingly stubborn not to accept it as true. :knight: :cheers:
When science declares that something is true or a fact it doesn't ever mean that it is true in the absolute sense, that isn't how any science works. A scientific fact is an assertion for which there is so much evidence that it would be perverse to deny it.
So, science does not declare absolute truth, but (merely) that those who disagree are "perverse". Some other people here would maintain that this is how religion works in their opinion, but you are saying science works this way. Looks like science and religion are not that different. And it makes sense, because when you remove religion, it's natural that some other thing assumes its place.
For example only a philosopher (like Ersi perhaps), would deny that atoms exist and are the smallest recognizable part of an element.
A philosopher (like Ersi) says that atoms are not what you think they are. Atoms are a subset of the general order of things and they follow the order. Atoms do not make up the order for all other things. QM happens to agree with me in that atoms are not particles; the notion of fundamental particles was in error all along.
So, science does not declare absolute truth, but (merely) that those who disagree are "perverse".
How long are you going to harp on this nonsense of yours when you fully know the answer yourself? Science makes no absolute claims simply because theories cannot be tested in every single instance and situation in the universe. We have found no reason to doubt that scientific theories are applicable universally, but science chooses to remain science by its definition and declares no absolute truths. Now stop.
Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2015-02-06, 22:05:02 (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=805.msg34721#msg34721)For example only a philosopher (like Ersi perhaps), would deny that atoms exist and are the smallest recognizable part of an element.
A philosopher (like Ersi) says that atoms are not what you think they are. Atoms are a subset of the general order of things and they follow the order. Atoms do not make up the order for all other things. QM happens to agree with me in that atoms are not particles; the notion of fundamental particles was in error all along.
I said "part" not particle, but let us not split hairs on that when in actuality there are no particles at all. What is the smallest fundamental particle of matter? There is none because when you look deeper and deeper into so-called particles at the subatomic level nothing but energy emerges. Quarks are theorized to be made of vibrating strings of pure energy, so at the deepest level there is no fundamental particle of matter at all. These vibrating strings are thought to be so infinitesimally small that you would need to expand a single atom of hydrogen up to the size of the whole universe to even see it--at that point it would be about the size of an average tree. Cool beans. :knight: :cheers:
We have found no reason to doubt that scientific theories are applicable universally […]
You, sir, must live in an alternate universe!
Even such a commonplace as consciousness eludes scientific elucidation. (Let alone, explication.) Science is good at what it does.
It sucks, at what it doesn't do.
But I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself:
We have found no reason to doubt that scientific theories are applicable universally […]
Note three "theories" of Science that are universally applicable.
I said "part" not particle, but let us not split hairs on that when in actuality there are no particles at all. What is the smallest fundamental particle of matter? There is none because when you look deeper and deeper into so-called particles at the subatomic level nothing but energy emerges.
This goes to prove my point: Atoms (as particles) was the wrong theory all along.
Quarks are theorized to be made of vibrating strings of pure energy, ...
Strings are wrong too. Just plain wrong. One of the reasons why the scientific community has ended up saying they have no claim to (absolute) truth is their track record for having been wrong.
Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2015-02-06, 15:45:58 (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=805.msg34726#msg34726)We have found no reason to doubt that scientific theories are applicable universally […]You, sir, must live in an alternate universe!
Even such a commonplace as consciousness eludes scientific elucidation. (Let alone, explication.) Science is good at what it does.
It sucks, at what it doesn't do.
I certainly need to watch my modifiers with you, but you are correct in pointing that out. Some scientific theories have simply not been tested experimentally and others have simply not been tested enough (or long enough), to believe that they would be universally applicable. However, for you to say that science sucks at what it doesn't do (presently I assume), is like saying that a sports arena sucks as a sports arena while it is a work in progress (being built). Besides it's only your poorly informed (you stubbornly refuse to see what science is or how it works), subjective and highly biased opinion (i.e., useless).
Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2015-02-06, 15:45:58 (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=805.msg34726#msg34726)We have found no reason to doubt that scientific theories are applicable universally […]Note three "theories" of Science that are universally applicable.
I simply said that science has not yet come upon any circumstance or any grounds to believe that certain theories are not universally applicable. The names 'law' and 'theory' in science are primarily historical. During the time of Newton it was popular to ascribe physical "laws" to the world (e.g. Newton's Laws of motion, Kepler's Laws of planetary motion). By the time of Einstein, it was no longer popular to do so, and instead we look at physical "theories". For example Newton's Law of Gravity has been refined (some say falsified), by Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Therefore, science can now see that Newton's Law of Gravity should have been more correctly called a theory. Today every hypothesis in science, no matter how reliable or time tested, is called a theory. It's just semantics. :knight: :cheers:
This goes to prove my point: Atoms (as particles) was the wrong theory all along.
If you wish to argue the silly linguists of names, go to a linguistics thread.
Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2015-02-06, 23:45:58 (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=805.msg34726#msg34726)Quarks are theorized to be made of vibrating strings of pure energy, ...
Ersi: Strings are wrong too. Just plain wrong. One of the reasons why the scientific community has ended up saying they have no claim to (absolute) truth is their track record for having been wrong.
Even you have acknowledged that any original hypothesis in science is simply a guess--that's how it all starts. When humans guess, they can be wrong much of the time or at least partially wrong. When hypotheses are tested and proven false in even one instance, then they either need to be discarded or, most often, modified and tested again (wash, rinse, repeat). :knight: :cheers:
Even you have acknowledged that any original hypothesis in science is simply a guess--that's how it all starts. When humans guess, they can be wrong much of the time or at least partially wrong. When hypotheses are tested and proven false in even one instance, then they either need to be discarded or, most often, modified and tested again (wash, rinse, repeat). :knight: :cheers:
Sure I acknowledged it, but this does not redeem science in any way. It only makes clear that science needs philosophy. Philosophy provides the method of sensible guesses. Philosophy is the art of asking the right questions and foreseeing all the possible answers.
Even you have acknowledged that any original hypothesis in science is simply a guess--that's how it all starts. When humans guess, they can be wrong much of the time or at least partially wrong. When hypotheses are tested and proven false in even one instance, then they either need to be discarded or, most often, modified and tested again (wash, rinse, repeat). :knight: :cheers:
Sure I acknowledged it, but this does not redeem science in any way. It only makes clear that science needs philosophy. Philosophy provides the method of sensible guesses. Philosophy is the art of asking the right questions and foreseeing all the possible answers.
I will relent to some degree that philosophy can be helpful to science after reading this (http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scientism) from Oakdale. There is such a thing as junk science which can be spurious or even fraudulent, especially in the science of global warming models and behavioral ecology (some serious hanky panky there). I assume that by "sensible guesses" you mean relevant and meaningful hypotheses. I think that the peer review embedded in the scientific process weeds out much of that. I'm not sure what you mean by "foreseeing all the possible answers", it seems to me it would just be guessing on top of guessing. Moreover, not even philosophy can foresee all possible outcomes; and of what value would that be anyway? :knight: :cheers:
I will relent to some degree that philosophy can be helpful to science after reading this (http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scientism) from Oakdale.
Maybe so, but much much of the article itself is complete gibberish. It even touches on the idea that the universe seems fine tuned for man; in fact the more you know about astronomy, etc the less "fine tuned" the universe is. Even so, I can find some truth in there. It just gets difficult to overlook the nonsense. Maybe the distracting and sometimes incorrect tangents the other goes one just needed to be edited out.
Here's one instance in which Hughes must be misunderstanding the source that he cites for the article and serves of an example of what I mean.
Physicist Lee Smolin, in his 1997 book The Life of the Cosmos, goes one step further by applying the principles of natural selection to a multiverse model. Smolin postulates that black holes give rise to new universes, and that the physical laws of a universe determine its propensity to give rise to black holes. A universe’s set of physical laws thus serves as its “genome,” and these “genomes” differ with respect to their propensity to allow a universe to “reproduce” by creating new universes. For example, it happens that a universe with a lot of carbon is very good at making black holes — and a universe with a lot of carbon is also one favorable to the evolution of life.
I don't know what to say except don't even attempt to write articles that that when you clearly you're drunk. Blackholes have nothing to do with carbon :faint: Now I want to read
The Life of the Cosmos just to find out what Smolin really said and in what context. :p
I will relent to some degree that philosophy can be helpful to science...
There are good ethical reasons to not help science. Namely, science methodically spits on ethics.
As to life in outer space, people will immediately find it as soon as they define life correctly. The problem with Darwinist science is that it defines life in terms of biological functions. Darwinists simply project the kind of life they see on earth into outer space and expect to find it there. Wrong definition, wrong expectations.
It would of course be cool if they found the kind of life on Mars as in that HP copier commercial (reply #15). But the fact that the commercial already foresaw this would take away all the glory from science. Better for science's reputation to not find it.
I'd be happy with some microbes and a few of attendant viruses, but I don't expect that any will pop up any time soon.
Anybody up for Mars exploration?
The temperature on Mars may reach a high of about 70 degrees Fahrenheit (20 degrees Celsius) at noon, at the equator in the summer, or a low of about -225 degrees Fahrenheit (-153 degrees Celsius) at the poles.
Darwinists simply project the kind of life they see on earth into outer space and expect to find it there. Wrong definition, wrong expectations.
Nothing terribly wrong with that, it's the only kind of life we know of and you gots to start somewhere. What is so special about our planet that you wouldn't expect nature to do the same thing on similar planets? Keeping in mind that a God did none of what we see, which is the only rational way to discuss this topic. :knight: :cheers:
There are good ethical reasons to not help science. Namely, science methodically spits on ethics.
Lol...not a good reason not to, besides science gets spit on by everybody else. :knight: :cheers:
So we still haven't figured out the base problem of this thread. Is there life anywhere else but here? Life of any kind, whether intelligent or not?
Given present technology, we've only just begun to discover planets beyond our system. In most cases, we haven't seen the planets themselves, we've guessed at them because of the behavior of the stars they orbit.
We are not able to prove, given present technology, that life of any kind exists on any of those planets.
We are not able to prove, given present technology, that life-- even intelligent life, even life beyond us in intelligence and technology-- doesn't exist on any of those planets.
We simply---- don't know. We're guessing, and your science-fiction horror-monster space alien is as good as mine.
Given present technology, we've only just begun to discover planets beyond our system. In most cases, we haven't seen the planets themselves, we've guessed at them because of the behavior of the stars they orbit.
Or next year astronomers can find an object moving through in the Ort Cloud in what appears to be in a strangely controlled way. Closer examinations reveals that it appears to be a vessel of some kind. Thirty seconds later, the governments of Earth cover it up.
So we still haven't figured out the base problem of this thread. Is there life anywhere else but here? Life of any kind, whether intelligent or not?
With the launch of the awesomely powerful James Webb Space Telescope (http://jwst.nasa.gov/index.html)(JWST), due in 2018, many many questions about the universe will become much clearer, including the existence of suitable exoplanets for life. More (http://io9.com/5936523/these-mirrors-will-allow-us-to-observe-the-birth-of-the-universe-yes-really). :knight: :cheers:
Or next year astronomers can find an object moving through in the Ort Cloud in what appears to be in a strangely controlled way. Closer examinations reveals that it appears to be a vessel of some kind. Thirty seconds later, the governments of Earth cover it up.
Oh yeah, like we can see a tiny vehicle that is at least half a trillion miles away...jeez. :knight: :P
Okay I got carried away :p It happens. I did find out the The smallest Kuiper Belt object (http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/science_year_in_review/pdf/2009/smallest_kuiper_belt_object_ever_detected.pdf) It's half a mile across and Hubble couldn't see it directly. Although an interstellar craft could well be that size, it would be impossible to detect in the Oort cloud at present.
Maybe so, but much much of the article itself is complete gibberish. It even touches on the idea that the universe seems fine tuned for man; in fact the more you know about astronomy, etc the less "fine tuned" the universe is. Even so, I can find some truth in there. It just gets difficult to overlook the nonsense. Maybe the distracting and sometimes incorrect tangents the other goes one just needed to be edited out.
If the universe is "fine-tuned" for anything, it's black holes. For man? Hah!
There are good ethical reasons to not help science. Namely, science methodically spits on ethics.
If a system of ethics doesn't consider the truth important, it's inherently unethical and deserves to be spit on. One has to be very careful to distinguish "good ethical reasons" from the epitome of unethicality.
Not sure where to go with this one. "Science" regularly gives us believers a hard time because science can't measure God, therefore claims Him not to exist.
On the other hand, we recently had a thread about paranormal activity, and truth to tell most of that stuff doesn't stand up to even cursory examination. You-Tube is full of poltergeist videos, and not one of them looks anything but staged for the camera. There MIGHT be a couple of ghost incidents which could stand scientific examination, but most of it is-- bunkum. That which is real is stuff you don't want to mess with, "the thief comes only to steal, kill and destroy".
Not sure where to go with this one. "Science" regularly gives us believers a hard time because science can't measure God, therefore claims Him not to exist.
"Science" does nothing of the sort, but some scientists do while others don't.
Nearly 36 percent of scientists have no doubt about God’s existence
18 percent of scientists attended weekly religious services (compared with 20 percent of the general U.S. population
15 percent of scientists consider themselves very religious (19 percent)
13.5 percent of scientists read religious texts weekly (17 percent)
But research also shows where the threads of suspicion run. A 2009 study by Pew Research found a wider gap between scientists and the general public on religion. And Ecklund’s new study also found:
22 percent of scientists and 20 percent of the general population think most religious people are hostile to science
22 percent of the general population thinks scientists are hostile to religion
27 percent of Americans feel that science and religion are in conflict
Of those who feel science and religion are in conflict, 52 percent sided with religion
- See more at: http://cathylynngrossman.religionnews.com/2014/02/16/science-religion-aaas-hamonnye-evangelical/#sthash.cg7CX2gK.dpuf
Science and philosophy are — like American Idol…? (You've done your job well, teacher!)
There are good ethical reasons to not help science. Namely, science methodically spits on ethics.
If a system of ethics doesn't consider the truth important, it's inherently unethical and deserves to be spit on. One has to be very careful to distinguish "good ethical reasons" from the epitome of unethicality.
In all honesty, it looks like we agree definition of ethics. However, note that there's no science in the definition. The same way as science is incapable of defining ethics (because ethics is unempirical), it's also incapable of defining truth. The notion of separability of truth and ethics is a misconception. In philosophy, truth is an ethical value, inseparable from ethics as a whole.
Anyway, whether separable or not, both truth and ethics as a whole are unempirical. Empirical science has no claim on the immaterial, even though it mistakenly tries to lay claim on it all the time.
Empirical science has no claim on the immaterial, even though it mistakenly tries to lay claim on it all the time.
You might provide some examples...three would be nice.
Anyway, whether separable or not, both truth and ethics as a whole are unempirical. Empirical science has no claim on the immaterial, even though it mistakenly tries to lay claim on it all the time.
Hello Ersi...'Science has no claim on the immaterial' is correct simply because there is no truth (empirically, logically or otherwise), to the immaterial. :knight: :cheers:
Truth is a difficult concept because it varies so much from culture to culture, and within a culture from person to person.
Science doesn't help.
Almost a quarter of Americans think scientists are hostile to religion. But what do we really know about how scientists think about morality, spirituality and faith?
From 2005 to 2008, I surveyed nearly 1,700 natural and social scientists on their views about religion, spirituality and ethics and spoke with 275 of them in depth in their offices and laboratories. It turns out that nearly 50 percent of scientists identify with a religious label, and nearly one in five is actively involved in a house of worship, attending services more than once a month. While many scientists are completely secular, my survey results show that elite scientists are also sitting in the pews of our nation's churches, temples and mosques.
Of the atheist and agnostic scientists I had in-depth conversations with, more than 30 percent considered themselves atheists; however, less than six percent of these were actively working against religion. Many atheist and agnostic scientists even think key mysteries about the world can be best understood spiritually, and some attend houses of worship, completely comfortable with religion as moral training for their children and an alternative form of community. If religious people better understood the full range of atheistic practice -- and the way that it interfaces with religion for some -- they might be less likely to hold negative attitudes toward nonreligious scientists. The truth is that many atheist scientists have no desire to denigrate religion or religious people.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elaine-howard-ecklund-phd/the-contours-of-what-scie_b_611905.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elaine-howard-ecklund-phd/the-contours-of-what-scie_b_611905.html)
Truth is a difficult concept because it varies so much from culture to culture, and within a culture from person to person.
Or for that matter so does ethics.
Indeed.
my survey results show that elite scientists are also sitting in the pews of our nation's churches, temples and mosques.
Right along side of those scientists there seems to be many non-believing religious people. Too many people are either confused by labels or simply refuse to be labeled at all. Click (http://tobingrant.religionnews.com/2014/10/24/belief-god-atheists-graphs-churches-religions-faiths/) :knight: :cheers:
I'm not sure about how I would qualify in that survey. If they started asking "what church do you belong to?" the answer would be a Lutheran one. Then, "do you believe in God?", "no". I would not score as an atheist, but as a Lutheran that's not certain about God.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2F2tzms222h2ff3dfce824gngnno8.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com%2Ffiles%2F2014%2F10%2FBelief-in-God-457x640.png&hash=47464a0767d1f53b960d3c5eb82ec030" rel="cached" data-hash="47464a0767d1f53b960d3c5eb82ec030" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://2tzms222h2ff3dfce824gngnno8.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2014/10/Belief-in-God-457x640.png)
Looks like atheist and agnostic churches are seriously left behind when it comes to belief in God, but even they are not totally devoid of faith :D
By the way, what kind of church is "nothing in particular"? Where can I join?
Million years?
In the sixth year Aniara fared
with undiminished speed toward Lyra's stars.
The chief astronomer gave the emigrants
a lecture on the depth of outer space.
In his hand he held a splendid bowl of glass:
We're slowly coming to suspect that the space
we're traveling through is of a different kind
from what we thought whenever the word "space"
was decked out by our fantasies on Earth.
We're coming to suspect now that our drift
is even deeper than we first believed,
that knowledge is a blue naiveté
which with the insight needful to the purpose
assumed the Mystery to have a structure.
We now suspect that what we say is space
and glassy-clear around Aniara's hull
is spirit, everlasting and impalpable,
that we are lost in spiritual seas.
Our space-ship Aniara travels on
in something that does not possess a brain-pan
and does not even need the stuff of brains.
She's traveling on in something that exists
but does not need to take the path of thought.
Through God and Death and Mystery we race
on space-ship Aniara without goal or trace.
O would that we could turn back to our base
now that we realize what our space-ship is:
a little bubble in the glass of Godhead.
I shall relate what I have heard of glass
and then you'll understand. In any glass
that stands untouched for a sufficient time,
gradually a bubble in the glass will move
infinitely slowly to a different point
in the glazen form, and in a thousand years
the bubble's made a voyage in its glass.
Similarly, in a boundless space
a gulf the depth of light-years throws its arch
round bubble Aniara on her march.
For though the rate she travels at is great
and much more rapid than the swiftest planet,
her speed as measured by the scale of space
exactly corresponds to that we know
the bubble makes inside this bowl of glass.
Aniara, song 13
[video]http://youtu.be/4Z5IaQiTC1s[/video]
Looks like atheist and agnostic churches are seriously left behind when it comes to belief in God, but even they are not totally devoid of faith
Let me know if you ever find an atheist or agnostic church. My head is spinning.
Let me know if you ever find an atheist or agnostic church. My head is spinning.
Could be part of an Evil Atheist Conspiracy. :devil:
Looks like atheist and agnostic churches are seriously left behind when it comes to belief in God, but even they are not totally devoid of faith
Let me know if you ever find an atheist or agnostic church. My head is spinning.
With the First Church of Atheism you can become ordained quickly, easily, and at no cost. (http://firstchurchofatheism.com/)
Could be part of an Evil Atheist Conspiracy. :devil:
I suppose no one has noticed how curiously close to 'Satan' my last name is? Muuuuuuaaaahahahaha!! :knight: :cheers:
My head is still spinning. I should have looked before making a silly request. There's one in the Nashville, Tennessee, area not far from where I live. It will be led this Sunday by Morgan Spurlock a documentarian from CNN.
My guess is that such mini movements have to do with a common desire to belong to a club, which is why I'm a DnD member. However, whooping and hollering with upraised arms isn't my style, so no church for me, religious or secular.
whooping and hollering with upraised arms isn't my style
You have choices. :)
whooping and hollering with upraised arms isn't my style
You have choices. :)
Sit on the couch, legs dangling, whistling a Scottish tune. :jester: