the universe and space....?

Frank Apisa wrote:

...

2ND SCIENTIST: "I still think we should consider the possibility of something else existing past what we can see and reasonably infer from what we can see. Don't you think by doing what you are doing, you will more likely come up with a false picture of reality than if you did consider the possibility of something more? Are you really sure you will come up with a reasonable concept of the reality of things using the method you are using?

1ST SCIENTIST: "I am absolutely positive that the best way to proceed is to eliminate any consideration of anything for which we have zero data of its existence. Absolutely positive.

3RD SCIENTIST: "1st Scientist, how can you possibly be absolutely positive about anything? The best you can do is gamble on your own judgment."

"2nd Scientist, why do you think that we can avoid coming up with a false picture by consideration of the possibility of something more that we cannot observe? There is a very high probability that our consideration of the possibility of something more we cannot observe will itself in error. In any case, such consideration is of little use if we cannot determine whether or not our consideration is valid. It is higly probably such consideration will serve to be nothing but a diversion from pursuit of that which we CAN observe and learn something about."

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

...

2ND SCIENTIST: "I still think we should consider the possibility of something else existing past what we can see and reasonably infer from what we can see. Don't you think by doing what you are doing, you will more likely come up with a false picture of reality than if you did consider the possibility of something more? Are you really sure you will come up with a reasonable concept of the reality of things using the method you are using?

1ST SCIENTIST: "I am absolutely positive that the best way to proceed is to eliminate any consideration of anything for which we have zero data of its existence. Absolutely positive.

3RD SCIENTIST: "1st Scientist, how can you possibly be absolutely positive about anything? The best you can do is gamble on your own judgment."

"2nd Scientist, why do you think that we can avoid coming up with a false picture by consideration of the possibility of something more that we cannot observe? There is a very high probability that our consideration of the possibility of something more we cannot observe will itself in error. In any case, such consideration is of little use if we cannot determine whether or not our consideration is valid. It is higly probably such consideration will serve to be nothing but a diversion from pursuit of that which we CAN observe and learn something about."

Nah, Ican, you didn't improve on the story at all.

Why don't you just forget about all this and go back to telling us about the bowl!

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

Frank, where did you get that wonderful edifying and stimulating story? Did you make it up?

Yes, JL, I did make it up.

I told essentially the same story in a thread where Ican and I were arguing over in Abuzz.

Only there, the scientists were not designated as "1st Scientist" and "2nd Scientist." Over in Abuzz, they had names. 1st Scientist was named Ikhenaten and 2nd Scientist was named Frankhentemp.

I figured I could be more subtle over here.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Nah, Ican, you didn't improve on the story at all.

bowl!

Yes I did! Laughing

0 Replies

truth
Hate to introduce a hiccup in the flow of discussion here, but I find it hard to worry about having a "false picture of reality" (or the Cosmos) because that implies something that I do not feel exists or can exist: a "true picture of reality" (or the Cosmos). As I've indicated earlier (and maybe elsewhere), I do not have confidence in the notions of time and space (not to mention "stuff") when contemplating the Actual Universe, including its non-observed and non-observable aspects. All of what we can say about the Cosmos or Reality rests on OUR linguistic (including mathematical) systems. As such knowledge is a function of the knower-- Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

As such knowledge is a function of the knower--

Which knower or knowers? Or is knowledge independent of knowers and the tools of knowers, and instead a function of reality?

The knowers, or more correctly the would be knowers, are themselves part of reality if it exists. If reality doesn't exist then it would seem that the would be knowers don't exist either. But if the would be knowers do exist, then reality necessarily does exist. If reality exists, then reality would exist independent of any would be knower's "confidence in the notions of time and space (not to mention "stuff") when contemplating the Actual Universe."

0 Replies

truth
Who asks questions? Who devises measurement criteria and decides P levels? Of course all this is what we include within our notion of Reality. But can we posit an objective world "out there" with qualities independent of the values and meanings we ascribe to them? The Naive Realism underlying the metaphysics of Positivism is inadequate for the most thorough and courageous of inquiries into our situation. We cannot in good faith--when behaving philosophically, not as mere puzzle solvers--ignore our role in the construction of "knowledge."

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Terry I didn't write that it had to be condensed down to a single point. I wrote that IF SATOOU had finite stuff for an infinite time, THEN due to gravity that finite stuff would have consolidated down to either a small finite point or to an infinitesimal point.

You wrote:

ican711nm wrote:

(6) finite stuff for infinite time [requires all that stuff to have consolidated into a point];

By definition a point has zero dimensions and is neither finite nor infinitesimal.

I said that see no reason to think that this universe is all that there is, and you argued there is no data. That misses the point which is that there is no theoretical bar to multiple universes.

ican711nm wrote:

I am saying I theorize that the natural phenomenum that enables some configurations of proteins to think is the same natural phenomenum that enables configurations of other stuff I call IOU in OOU to think.

Considering that you do not think it is possible for human intelligence to emerge without intervention by IOU, why do you think it is likely or even possible that your IOU could achieve intelligence billions of years earlier and without any of the natural selection forces that shaped life on earth?

Re the Wright Brothers: you are using different definitions of "chance" in various arguments and drawing conclusions as if they were the same thing.

You have missed the point again re the probability of of a child with my unlikely combination of DNA having been born to my parents: Yes, it is exceedingly unlikely that homo sapiens would evolve. But homo sapiens was NOT A GOAL THAT HAD TO BE REACHED any more than my parents had to keep having children by the gazillions until my exact DNA sequence turned up. That's why your probability calculation is meaningless. I don't know why you cannot or will not see this.

0 Replies

Mech, yes, gravity CAN blueshift light: The number of photons per second entering a region of higher gravity does not change, but since time is slowed down for an observer there, his seconds are longer and more photons impinge on his detector per second (by his watch). Therefore he measures a higher frequency for the light, and it is blue-shifted.

0 Replies

JL and BoGoWo,
Yes, I agree, IF a big bang ever happened then it would be only one of an infinite series. Matter of fact I argued that once. "The Cosmos can be viewed as a bunch of Big Bangs blinking on and off all over the place.
However a few pop physics books later I decided that there is NO unambiguous evidence that any "Big Bang" type of event has EVER happened. Confused

I suspect that one is impossible.
As Sherlock Holmes once said " Once you have discarded the impossible, then what is left is probable" (paraphrased)

0 Replies

timberlandko,
Nice note. An accurate proverb is "Figures don't lie but liars can figure"
I have found that even possessing a Phd doesn't insulate a person from bias, nor prevent his biases from affecting his conclusions. Too bad, but all too human.

0 Replies

Ican re your post of Aug 12, 1:21

Infinite stuff; Infinite Space; Eternity! WHY NOT Question

What would define "less than infinite stuff".
Where would "less than infinite space" (distance) reside.
What would follow "less than an eternity"

Personally I keep bumping into the various infinities as I wonder about the relationships between matter, space, distance, time and existence. There seems to be NO END of problems unless one accepts an infinity as a possibility. Smile

Or a God, a fifth dimension, a big bang, a single dimensional entity etc. I submit that it is easier to imagine an infinity than the others. Of course this may have nothing to do with "the price of eggs".

I have oft used the term, "a modicum of intelligence" to describe the characteristics of absorbing energy and replicating.

But while this "life characteristic" has a lot to do with the ability to perceive the Cosmos I don't think that it has much to do with the physical laws that govern it.

Idea

Ican, If you can find a "life characteristic=intelligence" in the world of Quantum Mechanics then you may have a chance of finding that "life=intelligence" affects OOU. in some way. Might be worth thinking about a bit Exclamation

LOL you'll need it, M

0 Replies

Terry, re your post of Aug 12 8:38

This is exactly the point Smile

at which I resorted to the mechanical diagrams which I have mentioned before, with less than satisfactory results.
I am still not ready to argue that thoroughly, but it seems that in order to "blue shift " light to an observer then "the speed of space"(accelerations due to gravity) and the size of the photons (wavelength-frequency) must shrink (assume higher energies)exactly corresponding to the "speed of time" at the point of observation.
Since we must make all of our observations at whatever speed of time exists on Earth it is going to skew our "observed results".
The Harvard Tower experiments and the ones described by Paul Davies
( Empire State Building ones)both seem to show that energy increases (Wave length shortens) with the differing "speeds of space". OR that time slows with respect to the speeds of space Confused

Frankly

This has always led me to ambiguous answers. But on Earth it has always led me to a "red shift" of varying quantities. The slowing of time has always been less (I think) than the increase in energies would indicate. Somehow I think that we (OK I )are (am)missing something but am currently unable to figure out what. And maybe Frank is right Sad

.

So far , IMO, nobody has been able to do the math required to make The Cosmos finite without resorting to impossibilities, or undemonstrables.
Too much like a religion to suit me. Sad

Enjoying Alaska I hope, Best M

0 Replies

Jln;
if you think carefully about your comment:
"BOGOWO, too bad you're not God"
it cannot end well!
best case; i lose all self respect!
worst case; (my opinion) i cease to exist!(or become "imaginary")

0 Replies

Mech; re:"As Sherlock Holmes once said " Once you have discarded the impossible, then what is left is probable" (paraphrased)"
i think you will agree it was actually Conan Doyle who 'said' it!

and it sounds like you are taking ican's methodology in hand, saying there is no evidence for the 'B B' as if it were true, and then continuing;
sure there is room for debate on the subject, but there is a slew of evidence in that direction.

and speaking of ican: you must be beginning to see that this evolved universal intelligence thing is just a Lamarkian 'wet' dream; i fully agree with Terry, it makes no sense at all!

0 Replies

I keeps seeing people mention quantum mechanics and all that in reference to space.... you have to remember that quantum mechnics is hardly applicable over anything more than microscopic distances - just as special and general relativity are ONLY applicable on macroscopic distance scales (eg. space).

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

Considering that you do not think it is possible for human intelligence to emerge without intervention by IOU, why do you think it is likely or even possible that your IOU could achieve intelligence billions of years earlier and without any of the natural selection forces that shaped life on earth?

"without any of the natural selection forces that shaped life on earth?" Shocked

Whereinhell did you ever get the idea I advocated that?

Unless I'm delusional, humans exist. Unless my interpretation of written research results is delusional, humans evolved about 200,000 years ago. Unless my interpretation of written research results is delusional, the common ancestor to mice and humans existed about 60 million years ago.

First I don't think it impossible without intervention [i.e., probability = zero]. I think it improbable [i.e., probability less than a moogolth = 10^(-1,000,000)] that UC+NS (i.e., Undirected Chance PLUS Natural Selection)caused humans to evolve within the last 60,000,000 years (or within the last 60 trillion years). I infer from that that the probability that DC+NS caused humans to evolve is greater than [1 - a moogoth].

DC+NS = Directed Chance PLUS Natural Selection = intelligent trial and error. I think it self-evident that one can more probably solve a problem within a given time by intelligent trial and error than one can do it by unintelligent trial and error. The Wrights employed intelligent trial and error. Had they employed unintelligent trial and error, probably someone else would have been the first to build and operate a powered aircraft capable of flight (in deed, their nearest competition was close behind).

Terry wrote:

You have missed the point again re the probability of of a child with my unlikely combination of DNA having been born to my parents

I think you missed the point of my response. Yes, any human born today (within, say 9 months) will probably have a unigue genome (e.g., unique finger prints). But that clearly does not constitute an evolution of a new unique species, much less the evolution of humans from that species that was the common ancestor to mice and humans, within 60 million years.

Further, genome uniqueness was probably NOT A GOAL THAT HAD TO BE REACHED at your birth, but perhaps it was A GOAL THAT WAS WANTED, but I lack sufficient valid data to even warrant a guess about that (i.e., itbeatsthehelloutofme whether or not you were wanted).

However, IT DOES NOT beatsthehelloutofme whether or not humans were a goal that was wanted. PROBABLY (i.e., 1-a moogolth) HUMANS WERE A GOAL THAT WAS WANTED.

I don't know why you cannot or will not see this. Laughing

But maybe you actually can and do see this. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

"DC+NS = Directed Chance PLUS Natural Selection = intelligent trial and error. I think it self-evident that one can more probably solve a problem within a given time by intelligent trial and error than one can do it by unintelligent trial and error. The Wrights employed intelligent trial and error. Had they employed unintelligent trial and error, probably someone else would have been the first to build and operate a powered aircraft capable of flight (in deed, their nearest competition was close behind)."

Well, that is a big duh...it's the same way I dodge my creditors. I have no patience for the math, but I might add the word "self" to "directed" and I think we are on our way. Laughing

0 Replies

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (1859 - 1930)

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

The Sign of Four (1890)

0 Replies

Cav,

It's a big DUH to me to. Here, sometimes we encounter disagreement about the obvious. Laughing

0 Replies

the universe and space....?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know