the universe and space....?

4 instance:
the universe exists; we can see (perceive) it we can photgraph it, & the 'laws' of physics that we have observed & therefore defined over hundreds of years are not offended by these photos, spectrums, sounds, etc. that have been recorded.
& those, who know that, include the actually existing, internet participants using the names (abreviated as usual) frank, ican, mech, jln, twyvl, etc., etc., and BoGoWo. white physically pushing upon keys on the input devices of their computing devices.
i'm sorry but i'm not going 2 entertain the 'guess' that all this is an halucination!
likewise the galaxy & solar system exist, the earth & moon exist, there is soil beneath my feet.
this is stated @ about 13:oo hrs. siderial time by mutual agreement, on the 5th day of august, 2003, another bow 2 convention.

what is 'time'? oops, now there is something we can discuss, since while we can use it, we don't have a solid convincing 'touchable' hold on it.

we are mumbling around like a bunch of schoolboys, wondering if 'Linda' is 'hot' 4 them, or not!

please! let's talk about the things which need 2b 'thought' about!

0 Replies

Mech,

I want to review a few points.

I have encountered zero data regarding the appointment or endowment of some human being or some set of human beings to the position of absolute authority on what is or is not data.

We both are aware of conflicting sets of data regarding the cause of the redshift. As you are aware, I allege the principal cause to be the Dopler effect, and you allege the principal cause to be travel through a space containing stuff that produces varying strength gravitational fields.

But in both cases what we individually claim to be data is actually data merely because at least one of us says it's data. In short the necessary and sufficient condition for data to be data is for someone to think it is data.

We differ regarding the quality and quantity of our respective data. You and I as well as most others are well aware that the quality of data is describable in terms of several ranges:
irrelevant to relevant;
inadequate to adequate;
incorrect to correct;
invalid to valid;
un-necessary to necessary;
insufficient to sufficient;
incomplete to complete;
et cetera.

For example, by the term <insufficient data> I mean that I think the probability that the data is sufficient is less than a googolth, or is <practically impossibile>. By the term <sufficient data>, I mean that I think the probability the data is sufficient is greater than [1-a googolth] or is <practically certain>.

I think we both have encountered sufficient data to show that the space of OOU contains stuff and thereby gravitational fields of varying strengths. Also we have encountered sufficient data to show that the stuff and their gravitational fields are changing state moment by moment. Many of us have adopted the concept of time to describe those changes in ways that allow us to understand past states of that stuff and their gravitational fields, and to make predictions about future states of that stuff and their gravitational field.

This implies that if there were zero stuff, there would be zero gravitational fields and zero time. In the 20th century we encountered significant data that shows that time varies according to the strengths of the gravitational fields within the region time is being measured.

Finally, we have encountered sufficient data to show that intelligent purposeful life has evolved on planet earth. We differ on whether or not that data shows whether life evolved by undirected chance + natural selection (UC+NS), or by directed chance + natural selection (DC+NS).

If I have incorrectly characterized your views in the above, please correct me as soon as you can.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

If you don't know anything for certain except that you don't know anything for certain, then you don't know for certain that you are making the statement; you don't know for certain the nature of the being making the statement, consequently you cannot say one thing you know for certain is that you don't know anything for certain, for you simply don't know.

I don't know who or what I am.

I don't know who or what the universe is.

But I suspect/reason they are one and the same.

I agree with all that you have written here except that I suspect/reason differently. I suspect that I am a subset of the universe and am not the same as the universe. In fact, I think that the probability that I am a subset of the universe is greater that [1-a googolth], or is practically certain. I think the probability that I am the same as the universe is less than a googolth, or practically impossible. (Note: a googol equals 1 followed by 100 zeros; a googolth equals 1/googol).

0 Replies

ican;

"I have encountered zero data regarding the appointment or endowment of some human being or some set of human beings to the position of absolute authority on what is or is not data. "

all is not lost! Shocked

'we(royal)' will volunteer 2b the judge of such things, and pronounce with total authority, whether or not u r right! Twisted Evil

it's ok, don't need 2 thank 'us', it's nothing, really.:wink:

continue.....

0 Replies

Bogowo,

Thank you very kindly for your offer to decide what is or is not data.

Please be aware that there are others who are making that same offer, and, in fact, there is at least one other who has already attempted to usurp that position.

In fairness to you and the other candidates, I want you all to know that my current favorite candidate is Jackshit. Laughing

0 Replies

actually he and i r old skin diving buddies;
we used 2 swim around and around all day together.
what used 2 annoy me though, was that every day i still ended coming up with JackShit! Laughing

0 Replies

BoGoWo wrote:

What is (my) guess regarding the probability that a purposeful intelligent organism can evolve in a purposeless OOU?

I guess such is FACT, the evidence 2 me is overwhelming that there is no purpose 2 anything, except, i hasten 2 add, the purposes we initiate! /quote]

No purpose to anything except the purposes we initiate:?

The evolution of life on this planet was purposeless

The evolution of our solar system is purposeless

The evolution of our galaxy was purposeless

The evolution of the stuff of OOU is purposeless

Gravity is purposeless

OOU is purposeless

The evidence is overwhelming

What evidence? No what data can you supply to support your claim that all, except the purposes we initiate, are purposeless? What about the purposes initiated by other living organisms, like for instance that mosquito trying to find a way to me through my window screen? And what about that old Live Oak at the edge of my woods and my backyard that has grown one of its thick branches about 30 feet horizontally into my back yard?

BoGoWo wrote:
What is (my) guess that the probability of such an evolution is enhanced by a large enough number of planets in OOU?

I 'know' (no guessing) there would obviously b a huge enhancement to the probability of any evolution conferred by a larger environmental spectrum in which life can develop.

That wasn't the question

Current data implies the existence of other planets in other star systems in OOU. Attempts are being made to get data showing that at least one of these is suitable for the evolution of life. So there could be <enough> planets in OOU, noneofwhich is suitable for the evolution of life.

BoGoWo wrote:
unless everyone else here believes there is a devious & ignorant deity controlling all our perceptions, fooling us into ridiculous allusions, & generally participating in the chaos & meaninglessness in this universe, why can we not stop "tilting with windmills" "on the head of a pin", & begin to amass theories based upon the obvious, axiomatic evidence enveloping us, & hence proceed 2 the 'difficult', less obvious, questionable things, worthy of 'guesses' & 'opinions'?

Why do you think the only alternative is an intelligent OOU, if any, that is a "devious & ignorant deity controlling all our perceptions, fooling us into ridiculous allusions, & generally participating in the chaos & meaninglessness in this universe"? The purposeful, knowledgeable, and persistent Wright Brothers and Tom Edison served their purposes with thoughtful trial and error. What's the data that shows there can't be a purposeful, knowledgeable and persistent intelligent OOU that does the same thing at a higher level over a broader range:?:

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Please be aware that there are others who are making that same offer, and, in fact, there is at least one other who has already attempted to usurp that position.

Say what!!!

Name that scallywag and Bo and I will thrash him within an inch of his life.

0 Replies

Will the real scallywag Twisted Evil

please stand up so Frank can get Gobowo to thrash him?
.........
.........
.........
Confused

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Will the real scallywag please stand up so Frank can get Gobowo to thrash him?
.........
.........
.........

I thought Bo and I were gonna thrash him together???

0 Replies

Twyvel,
It seems as though we are trying to discover if matter could possibly exist without our perceptions. Or anythings perceptions or intelligence for that matter.
If you get on a roller coaster you perceive your stomach jumping. An independent observer would not be aware of it.
So what would the Universe be to an independent observer? And is there or could there possibly be any such a thing?

Ican, I think that I have shown that matter can exist independent of our perceptions of it.
Simply because we can percieve it does not imply that it doesn't exist.
The converse is also true and is an arguement often used in defense of the various Gods that some people "perceive".
Further more I am able to know that I may never have percieved matter but I am able to know that you have percieved it although you are unable to know that you have. This leads to an infinite regression. Probably not worthwhile pursuing further. Sad

Frank, If the Universe is perceived as infinite then intelligence becomes a certainty since its possible, and needs no other intelligence to have it show up somewhere. But if the Universe is finite then chances of some sort of Intelligent Design improve considerably. But I don't think that Ican will ever have a "lead pipe cinch".

So are we going to try time? Sometime. Smile

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

Frank, If the Universe is perceived as infinite then intelligence becomes a certainty since its possible, and needs no other intelligence to have it show up somewhere. But if the Universe is finite then chances of some sort of Intelligent Design improve considerably. But I don't think that Ican will ever have a "lead pipe cinch".

I agree with the notion here -- although I have a problem with the wording of "...is perceived..." -- and the notion of "certainty." But I agree with the notion in principle.

I normally conceive of the notion thusly:

If the UNIVERSE is infinite as to space and time -- anything is possible. In fact, getting from point "a" to "where we are now" is almost a dead certainty whether there is INTELLIGENCE guiding the evolution or not.

Even if the UNIVERSE is finite -- the trip from "a" to "where we are now" may still may have happened accidentally -- by which I mean, without intelligent aid.

I disagree very strongly with Ican's probability calculations and conclusions -- and I see the answer to the question that is inferred by our discussion as: "jury still out; no meaningful guess or calculation can be made at this time."

0 Replies

Yes Ican, We do, fairly IMO, have different evaluations of similar data.

But we are in good company. Very Happy

Hell, we are good company Exclamation

So is it fair to say that matter and time began, or never began, simultaneously? That one cannot exist without the other? And then consequently if one can find a "Beginning of time" then one finds also a "beginning of matter".
Or could one with sufficient time find intelligence conveyed by wave lengths longer than the ones we observe. Or if we were quick enough could we possibly find intelligence conveyed by wave lengths shorter than the old familiar ones?
Not asking for proofs, just ideas at this point.
Those questions must be answered before we can postulate different "dimensions" for Big Bangs, Gods, or one dimensional mathematics. Or beginnings for that matter.

0 Replies

BoGoWo wrote:

what possible basis is there 2 infer direction, and moreover, absolutely none 4 'INTELLIGENT' direction; this planet disclaims such thoughts!
(we've been here before)

fact please.

REVIEW

The genome, that thing originally in our personal, individually conceived egg that current data implies specifies all our individual protein configurations, is composed of chromosomes; chromosomes are composed of genes, genes are composed of codons; codons are composed of bases. There are 4 different kinds of bases. Each codon is comprised of 3 bases that specify one of 20 amino acids or one of 44 something elses for a total of 64 different things. te data implies that it is the sequence of this stuff that encodes the sequences of amino acids that in turn specify our protein proteins and our protein configurations then and now.

Current data implies that the difference between the human genome and the mouse genome consists of 300 genes with each composed of an average of 9000 codons containing 3 bases each. I GUESS (insufficient data is currently available to support this guess) that the genome for the common ancestor of mice and humans differs from the human genome by at least 300 genes.

Suppose we had on 1 table in one room 10 different dice labeled, respectively, 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,and 9 arranged in that sequence. How many different sequences of dice numbers can be obtained from the ten dice so arranged? Each die has 6 possible face values so the total possible number of sequences is 6^10 = 60,466,176. What is the probability P of obtaining a given sequence, say all 6s, in a single roll of each of the ten dice in turn? P = 1/60,466,176. What is P, if we do this 3,155,760 times (one per second, 3600 x 24 x 365.25) in one year? P = 3,155,760/60,466,176 = 0.0521905.

If we roll the whole set of 10 dice at the rate of one per second. The total time required is exactly 1 year: 3,155760 rolls x 1 second per roll divided by 3,155,760 seconds per year = 1 year.

Now, suppose we have 1 trillion such tables in one room with 300 x 9000 = 2,700,000 different dice labeled in sequence, but each die has only four sides (64 sides is a bit much). Now what is the probability of rolling all 4s in 10 billion years, if each roll takes only a Planck Time = 1.3509 x 10^(-43) seconds?

The total number of possible different sequences is 4^(2,700,000) = 10^(1,625,562).

The total number of dice rolls is (10^12) x (10^10) x (3,155,760) / (1.3509 x 10^[-43]) = 2,336,043 x 10^(65) = 2.34 x 10^(71).

Therefore, the probability of getting in one room, containing 1 trillion tables, all 4s in 10 billion years is, P = 2.34 x 10(^71) / (10^[1,625,562]) = 2.34 x 10^(-1,625,491).

What if the number of rooms was increased from 1 to 10? Then P = 2.34 x 10^(-1,625,490).

But what if we increased the number of rooms instead from 1 to 10 trillion? Then P = 2.34 x 10^(-1,625,478).

Let's increase the number of rooms instead from 1 to 10 googol. Then P = 2.34 x 10^(-1,625,390).

One more try Shocked

Let's increase the number of rooms from 1 to 10 "troogol" (i.e., 10 x 10^1,000,000). Then P = 2.34 x 10^(-625,490).

And so on Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

A "room" is analogous to a life evolving planet.

A table is analogous to the population of living organisms in/on one planet.

A troogol number of life evolving planets in OOU may make it probable for us to find at least two such planets in OOU: ours and one other. Surely the more such planets in OOU, the more likely we will find at least one other.

But as Einstein once observed: "The absence of proof is not proof of absence".

Let me say that my way: The absence of data is not proof of the absence of data.

One more caveat:
Natural Selection via some unknown process may itself influence the chances for particular genome sequences to occur. The available data does show that a high percentage of new genome sequences do not survive to procreate. If that's the case, it is plausible that the consumption by survivors of the genomes of non-survivers may influence the chances of what new genomes do occur. However, currently there is insufficient data to infer this.

0 Replies

My guess, Mech, is that a good clue to how intelligence is manifested in and by OOU, is how is it manifested in and by the human brain.

Insufficient data is available at this point, but we still have some time for discovery. The data that such a discovery has been made, when and if it is ever made, is the creation of a working model of the brain able to do what the human brain does. Then of course, we can test by transplanting an artificial brain to replace a dieing one.

Frankenstein's monster Shocked

Naaa. The monster didn't know Jackshit. :wink:

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

I thought Bo and I were gonna thrash him together???

Whether that is practical or not depends on who the scallywag is Laughing

I'm sure data will eventually be provided by the scallywag him or herself to allow the rest of us to determine if you both are actually capable of doing the thrashing together. Confused

0 Replies

Just a comment on the time and matter beginning thing.... Matter did exist before "time." Our definition of time can be slowed with an increase in gravitational fields. Prior to the big bang, all space and all matter existed in a 1-dimensional point, a singularity of sheer unimaginable density. Consequently, the gravitational force within this singularity was such that it halted "time." Once the singularity errupted, time began.

0 Replies

Bogowo,

Count your blessings! Razz

At least you are among that elitist group that knows Jackshit. It is probably rude of me to point out what follows, but in the interest of giving you your much deserved proper recognition, I must. Unfortunately a preponderance of humans do not know Jackshit. Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

I wrote:

<One more try Shocked

Let's increase the number of rooms from 1 to 10 "troogol" (i.e., 10 x 10^1,000,000). Then P = 2.34 x 10^(-625,490).
And so on Crying or Very sad

>

I should have written "moogol" instead of "troogol".
A googol = 10^100 (i.e., 10 times itself 100 times)
A thoogol = 10^1000.
A moogol = 10^1,000,000.
A boogol = 10^1,000,000,000.
A troogol = 10^1,000,000,000,000.

The word <googol> is defined in the dictionary. You can blame the rest of those words on me.

It's painful to be flawed. Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

the universe and space....?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know