ET Speculation

[CraigS]

Just suppose ...

In an infinite universe, which has existed for infinite time, suppose 6.4 x 10^28 protons, neutrons and electrons, (http://education.jlab.org/qa/mathatom_04.html) randomly assembled to form an intelligent being, (again), which then invented radio detection. This being then looked for exo-planets, and found one which may reside in a liquid water capable Habitable Zone (LWCHZ), 600 Lyrs distant.

This means that out of approx 3^10^28 possible randomly assembled configurations of sub-atomic particles, at least one instance of radio capable, sub-atomic combinations, is presently known to exist per LWCHZ.

A project called “SETI” looks at the exo-planet with a deep space radio network. They receive no recognisable signals. They conclude a ‘low probability’ that intelligent exo-life exists on that planet .. their search goes on.

How far does mathematical theory say they have to go to find a radio-capable ET being, based on this new evidence ?

3^10^28 x 600 Lyrs = 3^10^28 x 600 x (9.46073 x 10^12) kms
which is approx = (3^10^28) x 10^14 kms.

Anything beyond 62 x 10^9 Lyrs (approx 587 x 10^21 kms), comoving, is beyond causal contact for this radio capable assemblage of sub atomic particles, which live in a LWCHZ. So, based on this new evidence, it seems this particular hypothetical instance of SETI, would never receive intelligent ET radio signals, according to the mathematical concept of ‘The Infinite Universe’, and the known Laws of Physics.

:question:

Cheers

[renormalised]

Ah.....actually their chances of being able to contact another intelligent assemblage of atoms (this time what appears to be a large slime mold) is actually p=1, or a dead set certainty, give that this particular universe has been in existence for infinite time and is infinitely large. Despite the expansion of spacetime, eventually some scintilla of radio energy will leak over into either entity's comoving frame of reference for the other to detect. In actual fact, the expansion will eventually merge both comoving frames, otherwise we'd never have seen anything beyond the ends of our proverbial noses, so to speak, as every point in spacetime from the outset of inflation would've been within its own comoving frame and cutoff from everything else. Frames of reference must've merged, otherwise our universe would just consist of one spacetime point/particle. So, if we assume that frames of reference merge as spacetime expands, they will eventually come within the others reference frame. It might almost take forever, but it will happen. But by then, the signals might be so attenuated you couldn't tell them from the background noise.

[CraigS]

Fascinating …

In the particular universe of the radio-capable beings (RCBs), their species lifespan is finite, as alas, their Sun will wipe them out shortly … they can't wait !
:sad:

(There are many contradictions to this one, I reckon .. )

I think I'll live in a finite universe from now on … there are all these limitations … I mean, they have evidence that they live in a flat, infinite universe (no wrap-arounds, eh?) …

Also, the RCBs have noticed isotropic CMBR, which demonstrates causal contact at the very beginning of its own epoch and spacetime chunk !
.. Some RCB dude proposed something called 'inflation' to account for it !
:)
Cheers

[renormalised]

There is....the universe the intelligent slime mold lives in is populated by mainly cool planets that are not really to this particular slime mold's liking. Fortunately for them, the laws of physics in this Universe allow them to travel faster than light with relative ease. In the universe where the others live, their planet can get quite hot, which it is at present (34 C and 88% "stupidity") and they want to move to somewhere cooler. The slime molds propose a swap, which is gladly accepted. The slime mold sets up the swap and then it's done. But unfortunately, because of the RSF (relative state formulation), the one of the others which is the most important because they're actually experiencing reality according their PoV, gets left behind in the sweltering heat....and they're not amused!!!! :):P

[CraigS]

Well, in a mathematically defined "Infinite Universe" all things that are "possible", can and will, happen. See this link ... (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-3.4/turro.html)
further …
Pathological science was outlawed by both species which then paved the way forward for the development of radio technology.

As the two species are assembled from the same sub-atomic particles behaving under the same physical laws, and by the same process of scientific review, the 'idea' of FTL travel was unsupported by evidence and thus deemed not "possible" in either universe. It is thus excluded from the Theory of "The Infinite Universe".

Cheers

[renormalised]

Ah...but the slime molds were several hundred years ahead of the others and therefore knew that the scientific paradigm the others held onto was in error and not correct in many of its assumptions. Just as some thought the world was flat, so do these less advanced creatures think their laws of physics are inviolate and that they know what the state of play is at. Yes, pathological science had been outlawed, but what is to one lot pathological science is commonplace normality to the other. As the slime molds explained to the others, never assume you have all the answers or know what the facts are because invariably history ends up proving you wrong, no matter how sacrosanct you believe your physics might be. Your knowledge changes over time and therefore your paradigm is shifting all the time. What you consider impossible at one stage may become possible for you at another and conversely what you deemed appropriate science and theory at present may turn out to be bunkum in the future.

Or so the slime mold said :)

Speaking through an interpreter :)

[avandonk]

We are all made of assemblages of slime molds. Have you spoken to your liver lately?

Bert

[renormalised]

I have, actually. It said it was feeling good, but the heat up here was driving it a bit spare (it's a cool weather one) :):P

It also said its brothers in the other Universe are quite happy for us to come over and pay a visit :):P

[avandonk]

I find the willy the most complex entity as it has no neurons but it has a mind of it's own. It has survival instincts where it retreats against cold and advances towards warmth. It rises at the most inoportune moments.
My neices assure me that they are really handy on a picnic!

Bert

[CraigS]

Sure.
Observation and evidence determines the default state of knowledge.
The default may turn out to be incorrect, and this should be corrected, if there is evidence to indicate otherwise. This is how the advanced slime moulds progressed their own knowledge.

What has not been observed, is not dependable ... this doesn't mean that it is not verifiable, or cannot be inferred using indirect evidence. Invisible exo-slime moulds are not verifiable. Visible exo-slime moulds are, however. Both would seem to be possible. What has not been observed may not be possible, if it violates known physical Laws, (eg: FTL). If it doesn't violate known physical Laws, it may be possible.

If there is causal disconnect, and no physical Laws are violated, then the conjecture may still be possible.

I think :question:

Cheers

[Suzy]

I need a panadol.

[Suzy]

Perhaps you'll find these documentaries interesting.:D
I've downloaded them but haven't watched yet - they looked good :question: and I also seemingly like to torture my brain with that infinity one.:reindeer:.

BBC Horizon- "To Infinity and Beyond (http://www.youtube.com/user/ZZZFROMHELLZZZ#p/u/10/KNJgXbAFmmQ) (1hr in high def.)
NOVA - "Finding Life Beyond Earth" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntZqEhuXdS8) (1hr 45min in high def.)

I'm a big fan of Nova docs- they are highly informative.

[CraigS]

Suzy;

You've caught me out !

My entire OP was generated from afterthoughts I had after watching the BBC Horizon doco! From your link below, at the 43:22 minute mark, they lead into Max Tegmark's calculation of the distance to meet one's doppelganger in an "Infinite Universe". This is exactly the theoretical basis of the calculation I used in my OP.

I am very prepared to concede that I'm not entirely across the rationale for the seemingly simplistic nature of this calculation (and I have been challenged on it elsewhere), so I've been on the 'hunt' since my OP. Here's some Wiki words (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Level_I:_Beyond_our_cosm ological_horizon) confirming what's in the Horizon doco (for those wondering about the calculation). Love Max Tegmark's presentation style, by the way. (Also cracked up at the 'interview' room, which was crammed packed full of so many papers that the creepy interviewees, barely had room to fit in ! :lol: )

Whilst its a very high level approximation, there's a lot underlying the seeming simplicity of the calculation. Tegmark's original paper on Parallel Universes (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0302/0302131v1.pdf) explains the details (and there's a lot of them).

I'll have to catch up on the Nova presentation, shortly .. I haven't seen this one yet.

Many thanks for the links … you're really collecting a great library of good docos ! .. Very much appreciated.

Cheers

[sjastro]

Hi Craig,

I had a quick look at Tegmark's paper.
Unfortunately I couldn't find the mathematical derivation behind this calculation, so I'm cynical.;)

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

Well blow me down !
I'm shocked ! ..:eyepop:..

(Not really ... just kidding ! :) )

I think I'm starting to understand how he's done this..

If I picture a bubble-within-a-bubble model then ...

If every combination of possible arrangements of sub-atomic particles in our obs universe are laid out surrounding our own arrangement, and then this super-pattern repeats, then to get to the next equivalent universe to our own, (in the adjacent, or surrounding, super-bubble), one could say as a crude estimate, one would have to transit each individual arrangement within our own super-bubble. (This doesn't acknowledge that our position in our super-bubble might result in a closer proximity to the position of the equivalent universe in the surrounding super-bubble .. but I think that's OK, because there are so many arrangements, that this 'error' is swamped in comparison).

This then results in the number of arrangements times the diameter of our own obs universe. The number of arrangements is huge, compared with the diameter of our obs universe, so we can forget the obs universe figure.

Its a really crude average estimate, I think ... call it a 'field-engineering estimate', as distinct from what a more precise mathematician would come up with :P :)

I share your skepticism if I look for precision .. but I can see his point.

Check this out (from Wiki): (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Tegmark#Career)
See the part underlined ... I think this guy must be from a pure mathematics background !
:)
Cheers

[sjastro]

If one uses the analogy of a multiverse represented as a froth or a sponge with each individual cell a Universe, then a sphere of a given radius will include a number of Universes. If our Universe is at the centre of this sphere then one can argue the larger the radius the greater the probability of including a "duplicate" Universe.

However when Max Tegmark comes out with statements like:-



Clearly Tegmark has gone beyond statistical considerations. There is obviously some advanced mathematics beyond statistics in order make such a prediction.

Frankly the only cosmological model I can see that fits this requirement is an infinitely old Universe such as described by the Steady State theory.
Tegmark is a Big Banger.

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

Perhaps I've been watching too much of the BBC Horizon Program, but I think I understand his rationale.

The primary influencing factor here, is the assertion that in an Infinite Universe, anything which is possible, no matter how small the probability, will eventually happen ... and has already happened, infinitely many times over.
They spend a lot of time on the infinite monkey/Shakespeare's works thing and come to the conclusion that the monkey will succeed. Then, there will also be infinite monkeys typing randomly, ad infintum, as well. No matter how small the probability of it happening, because of the influence of the concept of infinite expanse and time, it will all eventually happen.

If one accepts this paradigm (of a truly infinite universe), then a duplicate world to our own, which is certainly possible, will exist. I'd say this is a prediction of assured existence .. it all comes from infinite mathematics (not that I've attempted any such proofs, specifically ...).

Its all about taking infinity to the extreme.

Cheers

[sjastro]

This is the problem with Big Bang universes, a single monkey doesn't have an infinite time to produce Shakespeare's works.

As far as an infinite number of monkeys given a finite time I suppose one can draw comparisons with a multiverse with an infinite number of universes with a subset of an infinite number of exact duplicates to ours. (Cantor would have been delighted to contemplate this):P.

Then we have the problem that all these universes are beyond our particle horizon, so their existence is a matter of faith.;)

Regards

Steven

[DJDD]

if it takes an infinite number of monkeys an infinite amount of time to write a shakespearean play, how long would it take half that number? :lol:



really, i think the use of monkeys by mathematicians is extremely distressing...

[sjastro]

It will still take an infinite time.

Here is something for you to contemplate, if you were able to half your set which contains an infinite number of monkeys into a subset, both the original set and subset, contain the same infinite number of monkeys.

Mathematicians refer to both sets as countable infinite sets.

There are uncountable infinite sets which are "larger" than countable infinite sets.

Regards

Steven

[DJDD]

Joke mode on:

[DJDD]

i love "infinity".
it reminds me of an episode of "The Tick". :thumbsup:

[sjastro]

Yes I understood it was a joke. I can read icons.

Ironically it was this sort of question that completely changed our view of infinity.

The mathematician who came up with the theory was put in a mental asylum, the establishment at the time saw it more than a joke.

Regards

Steven

[DJDD]

it was the serious answer that tricked me. :)



that would make a good chapter in a history book.

[CraigS]

Well .. I was going to let this thread fade away, but a couple of very salient points have arisen, as far as I'm concerned.

It seems that the theoretical proposition of an Infinite Universe, which necessarily leads to the conclusion: "anything which is possible, will happen", (eg: ETs, life, etc), is more or less rendered moot by mainstream Standard Model Cosmology (Big Bang, etc).

This raises a problem however for the Standard Cosmological Model (SCM), as well as for those who use infinity arguments in support of the existence of discoverable ETs. The 'preferred' topological shape of the universe is an infinite flat one … and yet the SCM has roots in the Big Bang phenomenon, which gives us a finite origin in the past.

The best resolution of these problems I can see, is either to go with the concept of a finite universe (which calls for defining what exists beyond the boundary), or move forward acknowledging the flawed Infinite Theory, and seek hard evidence. The latter approach will always be limited by the finite boundary of our observable universe, anyway.

Can this finite volume be searched thoroughly enough to detect ETs (or life)? Theoretically, 'No !". The search must be motivated by faith, alone. To produce meaningful results, the search needs to operate within the limits defined by an attainable result. To build knowledge which can ultimately be used to expand the search volume, incremental steps, beginning locally, is an assured winning strategy.

Other than randomly detecting a fluke intelligent ET radio signal (or a proven ET visitation), I cannot see how a credible exo-life discovery could presently be declared, unless it can be proven to be directly associated with a pre-defined Habitable Zone. The Habitable zone definition itself, will also carry little/no weight as far as the existence of exo-life is concerned, until exo-life is directly discovered in one such zone. The only way to achieve this, is by manned exploration locally.

Cheers

[sjastro]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor

Regards

Steven

[renormalised]

Nah, where's ya spirit of adventure!!!! :):P



No it doesn't. Just because something has a beginning it has no bearing on what that thing becomes, physically or anything else, except that it had a beginning. You were born a tad over 50 years ago....does that make you any less a person than what you are???. No. The age you are has no real bearing on who you are, or how tall you are. Nothing is rendered moot by the SCM.

The preferred topology is an infinite flat one, but the beginning of it all has no bearing on it in so far as it's a starting point (leaving aside all the rest of the physics for the time being). If the Universe is finite, then it is, but that still has no bearing on the possibility of the existence of ET. In actual fact, neither does the possibility that it's infinite. Most of these arguments are based on semantics and probability....they're thought exercises, what if's.




I don't think we're in any position to say anything definitive about this except to make very broad assumptions and hope we get it right. We simply aren't advanced enough (i.e. we don't have the technology), nor are we capable enough of exploring the Universe at a level which would allow us to make a reasonably good attempt at answering the question.

It's really like having three blind men try to identify an elephant based on only what they can sense through touch. One grabs the tail and thinks it's a rope, another grabs the leg and thinks it's a tree, the last one grabs the trunk and thinks it's the arm of an octopus....none are right despite them being thoroughly convinced of their pronouncements. Until the elephant trumpets, none of them know what they've got and if one of them is deaf as well, then he'll never know anyway.




You've just contradicted yourself grandly there, Craig. You talk about a thorough search not being able to detect ET's in a finite volume, and say it can't be done, theoretically. Then you give the answer to how you'd do it, which is exactly the way it would be done!!!!. You better watch what you write :)

Faith has nothing to do with it.

The answer is yes (given enough time and effort, so long as the Universe is finite).




What if they detect a navigation beacon or a distress call, or just random traffic??? Doesn't have to be in a HZ at all...could be in deep space. Just because an intelligent signal (of any sort) is being beamed into space doesn't mean it can't be one because you haven't found it in a HZ. So long as the signal show clear signs of intelligence (extremely narrow band, FM/AM signal characteristics etc etc), it doesn't matter where it's coming from. Be it a planet orbiting a star or from the bridge of a starship out in the middle of nowhere. Many signals, in this case, will be one offs (e.g. the "WOW" signal) and wholly unrepeatable and probably not worth following up (unless you see the same signal again, for some reason). But because they happen only once and aren't repeatable doesn't mean they're not from something of intelligent origin. All you can say with signals like this is that they're unusual, possibly of intelligent origin but ultimately we can't tell. Unless, of course, ET turns up and complains about us eavesdropping in on their private conversations!!! :):P We'd probably be sued and taken to Galactic Federal Court for "wire tapping"!!! :):P

[CraigS]

The 'etc' part of what I wrote includes all that goes into the concept of causality .. which is part of the SCM.

I think we also need to make the distinction between the causality boundary and the overall universe, here.
It seems to me, for all intents and purposes, the volume inside the causality boundary is all we'll ever be able to search. Anything beyond it, falls into the realm of (perhaps) the mathematical concept of the Infinite Universe. If the argument for ET's existence relies on arguments from space beyond the causality boundary, then that argument is logically 'moot' and is excluded from verifiability.


Do you mean … "subject to debate, dispute or uncertainty and typically not admitting of a final decision"? (http://www.google.com.au/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=definition+moot&pbx=1&oq=definition+moot&aq=f&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1183l4272l0l4471l15l14l0l0l0 l0l356l3562l0.2.6.5l13l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=672d2db404c4ec5&biw=817&bih=861)



A finite volume still has infinite spaces .. the entirety of a finite volume cannot theoretically be fully searched (and this is regardless of the lack of infinite resources required to do so).
Ok … so who cares ? … the search can still proceed and doesn't doesn't necessarily have to follow the theory. It can be lead by faith, with the sole purpose of then having an attainable goal. But to search without an attainable goal .. is a fundamentally flawed strategy.


Which we don't have.


Exactly .. ultimately, we can't tell.

Also, your scenario of the 'beacon, distress call, etc' emanating from within space, is covered in the first part of what I said: "Other than randomly detecting a fluke intelligent ET radio signal"

I was referring to the declaration of discovered exo-life on distant, remote exo-planets outside our solar system. If the exo-lifeform detection 'evidence' is not accompanied by hard evidence of a life sustaining HZ, then the discovery carries little scientific meaning, (other than to the faithful). Similarly, for the same reason, the definition of 'HZ' without any accompanying exo-life discovery, carries scientific little meaning as far as exo-life is concerned.

Cheers

[renormalised]

I think we also need to realise that most of these "boundaries" are rather arbitrary constructs that depend on ones position relative to where one defines the boundaries (usually via observation and the accompanying theory). Move yourself out 10 billion light years from our position and the boundaries move. It's not like there's a hard and fast barrier beyond which nothing is or can be known. It's a rather artificial construct....move out far enough and our own galaxy would go beyond your horizon. The "barrier" is more of a barrier in time than in space. Space has expanded way beyond that distance, however you cannot see beyond a point in time where the expansion has carried those signals beyond the "causality barrier". In other words, the signals from those far flung galaxies are coming from a long time in the past (due to their distance from us) but the rate of expansion between them and us is such that the light will never reach us from our perspective.



You said it.



True, but that all depends on how you divvy up that space. It only has an infinite number of spaces if you so desire to partition it up into such or take it to a purely mathematical approach. How far do you want to go...to the quantum level?? With anything like this, you have to make compromises on what you're prepared to do with the resources you have. So, to be practical, a finite volume will be divided up into a number of manageable, finite spaces and searched. If we happen to miss the civilisation hiding behind the cosmic string out by Galaxy X, too bad. Pick them up on the next pass :) Maybe.



You don't need faith to have an attainable goal. You set your goal and proceed with your search according to good scientific principles and well planned strategy for the search. Belief that something is "out there" doesn't even figure into the equation, except as the possible personal feelings of those conducting the search. But that shouldn't stop them from being completely objective about the way they conduct the search. You can follow theory whether you want to or not....that I agree with. In some case, the prevailing theoretical paradigm can be a major hindrance to those goals you set out to attain, especially if what you're doing is outside those parameters.



How do you know we don't have the time?? No one knows how much time we have. We may become extinct tomorrow, then again we may still be around when you, me and this galaxy have been done, dusted and long forgotten :)



Then we both agree there. But a HZ is hardly mandatory for declaring their existence.




I can agree with you there, for the most part, in principle, but not in the substance of what you wrote. We have no idea what physicality an intelligent form of exo-life might take or where it might reside, except for that which we may know of from extrapolations of an Earth based perspective. It mightn't even need a planet or anything like a HZ to live in. For those that resemble ourselves, then yes we will be looking for similar circumstances (as per your approach), but what would you make of an intelligent cloud that floats around in space outside of solar systems etc. Or even beings of pure energy/thought. Just because we haven't encountered them or can't understand their mode of existence doesn't mean they don't or cannot exist. Only that we don't know...in our ignorance. All possibilities, no matter how outlandish or unseemly they are, need to be taken into account until they can be irrefutably and irrevocably disproved. Or are shown to be nonsensical no matter what theory or level of knowledge is applied.

[sjastro]

To put into perspective how improbable a finite number of monkeys can reproduce a single work of Shakespeare in a finite period of time consider this.

If we use 10^80 monkeys with typewriters ("roughly" the number of atoms in the Universe) and a typing speed of 1000 keystrokes per second for a period of 10^150 years (the time to the predicted heat death of the Universe), the probability of a single work of say Hamlet being reproduced is a 1 in a 10^183,000 chance.

Not very good odds in a BB universe.

Obviously one cannot draw direct comparisons between monkeys randomly typing on typewriters and the evolutionary chances of ET, except to say the chances for ET's existence seem intuitively far better in an infinite steady state Universe than a finite BB universe.;)

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

Relatively arbitrary constructs ? .. Maybe.
Moving 'out 10 billion light years', is not feasible.

Almost goes without saying ...
The HZ is necessary in order to declare an exo-life discovery (beyond an ET 'level' of exo-life). I'm using the term 'exo-life' here in a broader sense to cover other life beyond ETs (eg: bacteria or whatever).

Agreed.
From my perspective, I'm not attempting to argue whether or not they exist.
My overall point is that our search space is limited by many aspects, which define our universe as effectively finite .. like it or not. Some of these boundaries are theoretically insurmountable without invoking a theoretical Infinite Universe. Even with an Infinite Universe, the flow-on effects, result in inconsistencies once verifiable evidence and accepted cosmology is brought to bear.
Scientific speculation is still subject to falsifiability testing.
Cosmology, verifiable evidence and pure theory, are legitimate tools for falsifying speculation.

Cheers

[renormalised]

They are. Where is the "brick wall" or physical barrier at the edge??. Certainly don't see one, nor is one detected.

Going out 10 billion light years is not something we can now do, but take it as being able to be done in the context of the discussion.



Agreed. However, I was looking at it from an ET perspective. As far as bacteria and such goes, the only real way to find them is to go to wherever they might be and look for them. Trying to detect them at a distance is a little more than dicey. Detecting photosynthesis on planets is somewhat easier, but still not 100%.

Actually, the crazy thing is it's far easier to find the LGM's (Little Grey Men, btw) than it is to find the more abundant bugs and moss :)




True, agree.



Totally agree with that.

[CraigS]

Chuckle, chuckle .. thanks for that !
Somewhere in the annuls of IIS, Robh got all fired up and performed a similar calculation .. (hope he doesn't mind my quoting a section of that calculation .. it was a work of true commitment, also. :)
I, fortunately, kept a copy for posterity) ...


… Same order of magnitude .. so its verified !

Cheers

[bartman]

Ditto;)
Interesting though.....
I wonder if Aristotle, Plato et al did the same thing back in the time....:shrug:
Cheers
Bartman

[sjastro]

Unfortunately these poor wretched individuals had to contend with Archimedes.:P

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sand_Reckoner

Regards

Steven

[avandonk]

The monkeys and the typing were just a visual idea of infinitely randomised trials. You would need an infinite number of bananas to feed them. Just too expensive to do.

Matter by doing an infinite number of trials will inevitably lead to life on any planet with constant liquid water and a 'sun'.

The only 'proof' I have is that we are here. All of our biological cellular functions were worked out by trial and error with evolution by primitive bacteria starting about three billion years ago and still doing it today.

We are all assemblies of these cells that somehow cooperate.

Our real delusion is that thinking we are at all unique in having 'intelligence'. We are all polluting space ship Earth to the point where our long term very survival is doubtful.

We are entering a mass species extinction era of our own making.

Paradise lost comes to mind.


Bert

[strongmanmike]

Totally agree, Intelligence and the quest for continual financial growth at all costs = a rather insidious and potent destructuive mix

Just as long as you get to use that OS 8"F3 before it's too late :thumbsup:

Mike

[avandonk]

I will try to image the very dim dark dust that are our ancestors or are they others futures?

Bert

[CraigS]

Yep .. I'd say the last few posts contain some individually held, deeply philosophical beliefs ... no point in going there ...

Cheers

[Robh]

On the likelihood that life will originate given similar conditions (e.g. Earth-like planet) and due to the sheer number of habitable planets.
The whole thing hinges on whether the inverse of the probability of formation of a living thing is of similar order to the number of life-supporting planets.

The origin of life is both dependent on a supportive environment but due to its random origins dependent on a large amount of time.
Time is a continuous variable and if fragmented into ever smaller units can be compared to a real number line with time as the variable.
The size of a time set is of the same order as that of the size of the set of real numbers, which is uncountably infinite.

For each point in time, a unique set of events can be described in terms of specific atoms, each with a specific location or spatial co-ordinate.
There are of course other factors such as the velocity and direction of atoms and their relationship to each other, which would make the set even larger.
Simplistically, the sequence of events that originated in life on Earth can be designated by a set of atoms + coordinates for each point in time.

As this set is uncountably large, it cannot be matched to the size of the set of habitable planets even if this set is countably infinite.
Therefore, the conclusion that life must originate somewhere else in the universe is not supported in simple probabilistic terms.

However, if the universe has a "predisposition" to create life then the probability that life forms can only be measured in statistical terms by sampling.
At this point in time, there is no statistical evidence for life anywhere other than here on Earth.

Regards, Rob

[sjastro]

Hello Rob,

In BB cosmology one uses cosmological time. It is the amount of time that has elapsed since the BB which is set at t=0. As a result cosmological time is strictly speaking a delta-t value not a time ordinate.

Cosmological time is a finite time interval.

Regards

Steven

[Robh]

Hi Steven,

A finite time interval, regardless of its size, does not preclude an infinity of subpoints within the interval.
This is not at odds with my point (unintentional pun). Time is a continuous variable and as such, between any two points in time there are an infinity of time locations. In fact, that many time points that it compares in size with the number of points in the real number line. Hence, the rest of the argument.

Regards, Rob

[Karls48]

Although, I told myself many times not to get involved with this thread, I just can’t resist. I think that conclusion from some of the contributions to this thread had proved (theoretically) that the life cannor exist – not even on the Earth.

[Robh]

Hi Karl,

I don't know if you are including me here. I was referring to the probabilistic arguments for life elsewhere i.e. given enough time and enough planets, life will arise by chance. You can't prove anything from the pure chance argument.

However, if by nature of the universe, life is common, then any calculations of the probability of life must be done by sampling. There are complex life mechanisms inherent to the universe. It can't just happen by chance alone.

Regards, Rob

[Karls48]

No Rob - i do not include you. I consider your contributions as holistic and for me lots of times informative. You are as some say scholar and gentleman.
My comment was not intended to insult anyone, it is my world view philosophy that inspired my comment
Regards
Karl

[sjastro]

Rob,

There is no cosmological or physical significance to expressing cosmological time as points in an interval. Cosmological time is the only point in the "interval". Every spatial point in the Universe is at the same cosmological time. Note this is not the same the time ordinate in special relativity.

Cosmological time is a carry over of Newton's idea of absolute time.

Cosmological time is analogous to the length of a ruler. A ruler can be a spatial interval that is described by a real number line interval which by definition forms an uncountable infinite set. This has no physical significance however as the length of the ruler is still finite.

Regards

Steven

[xelasnave]

It is interesting how this topic keeps on coming back.

No doubt life will prove to be the rule (unsupported personal meaningless opinion). Once established by observation this should not prove a surprise.

We should not get carried away etc but be your universe finite or infinite it is big enough to offer life homes that are not found only upon Earth.

Chemistry suggests life could be the norm it is just that we dont understand the chemistry well enough to confirm this yet..but the pointers are not unreasonable...observations will come in support rather than elimination of such a proposition ..a propostion one could reasonably expect given the hints given by chemistry.

Still we will chew the fat on this until we have evidence and then the evidence will probably prove the universe exists to support life as if that were its sole purpose...religion and science can both be content.

What is the meaning of life..or rather what is its job..probably something to do with recycling...but what is its purpose..how does it work within the system...mmmm great thread most interesting reading... is there still life in it???
alex:):):)

[Karls48]

Further, to my replay. If we conclude that we are only existing life forms in the Universe (finite or infinite) we have to consider possibility of some sort of creator. Although I find this idea very distasteful, it has to be considered in the view of incredible odds against the life existing anywhere the Universe. And that has to include our planet. I must add that I have been atheist from the preschool age and changed my worldview to agnostic lately, just because I come to conclusion that being atheist is a faith and by not acknowledging inability of proving existence or non-existence of some sort of superior being (the God, some would call it), makes me hypocrite.

[CraigS]

This is great !

You guys have stirred up soooo many thoughts with me I can barely order them .. (uncountable thoughts ??) .. :)

Ok … so I was sort of hoping to examine a bit more closely the rationale behind our present search strategy for exo-life in this thread … rather than debating exo-life vs no-exo-life.

Where I'm coming from is that I can see no scientific rationale being presently followed at all. Steven and Rob seem to heading towards developing a model by establishing a mathematical analogy which models the characteristics of spacetime (ie: the physical universe) and thence distilling something of value about exo-life possibilities. The ultimate aim of this would be to use mathematical formal logic to examine/scrutinise the self-constency of our present search strategies/methods, (I think). I'll take a bold step, and state that there is presently no self-consistency, nor rationale underpinning remotely based exo-life search strategies. It is motivated purely by faith, and is thus not scientific.

The idea that: "exo life exists" is not falsifiable. This being because no matter how many negative results are returned from searches (of say, exo-planets in HZs), no knowledge can be gained from that data which can contribute towards falsification. It is thus, a purely philosophical, faith based quest, and so it seems, is the basis of remote exo-life search strategies.

Lessons were learned from the Viking mission to Mars. The lesson was that even when we remotely apply our very best chemical/spectroscopic etc tests for exo-life, and a null or negative result is returned, we are left with the exactly the same question we started out with. Therefore, no knowledge or progress has been gained from the investment of effort/resources. The only time these questions, and subsequent tests, will progress knowledge about exo-life is in the case of a fluke direct encounter with exo-life .. which will happen regardless of the remote search methodology and investment of efforts/resources employed.

Its hilarious when one thinks about it. And then the whole exercise deprioritises the only strategy which can feasibly lead to direct encounters .. ie: local interplanetary exploration !

No ... IMO, the remote search for life, no matter how fancy it looks, is flawed, I'm afraid. Those who are passionate about believing in the existence of exo-life are being duped !

Cheers

[Karls48]

I do understand this, what I'm pointing out is that same mathematical analogy can be used to demonstrate that life should not arise here on the Earth. And because it did, it leads to other question - why?.
And before Avandok chips in and call me "ignorant goat herder" or something similar :P - I do not believe in and kind of superior being.

[CraigS]

But no-one uses the mathematics of the Infinite Universe theory to explain life's emergence on Earth, or to falsify life's emergence on Earth ! Complexity theory, pre-biotic chemistry and planetary formation theory does just fine in explaining how we got here (with some gaps). Evolution by natural selection takes care of the latter phases.

The Infinite Universe theory however, is commonly used as an attempt to justify the search for exo-life instances (I just watched one in the BBC documentary Suzy posted !) … This leads to the major inconsistencies, pointed out in this thread. My point is that any arguments which rely on this theory to justify searching for ETs are exposed for what they are .. ie: thinly disguised, faith-driven quests.

Cheers

[CraigS]

I should qualify the above statement … the words "no-one" above, would be more precise if I were to replace it with the following words:

"no-one practising real science, abuses the mathematics behind the Infinite Universe theory, by attempting to use it to explain life's emergence on Earth, or to falsify life's emergence on Earth !"
… also:

I should point out that the sense I am using the term 'faith' is not solely directed at religion (although religious beliefs do fall under the same definition).

Specifically, the 'faith' I'm referring to is the faith which encompasses the belief that exo-life exists … I guess this is also beginning to qualify as a religion nowadays, anyway, .. and it is penetrating into mainstream science masquerading under the banner of science.

Cheers

[xelasnave]

Perhaps science relies upon "faith" to a degree.

Science must have some faith in the prospect of the Higgs field etc and if not it would seem we have spent a lot of time and energy for no reason whatsoever. I doubt if the project would proceed if the hope of finding the HB had only a 1% chance ..elimination is useful but the hope presumably was that they would find it..not that they can eliminate it from the model.

Someone must have faith that the idea has merit such that resources are mobilised to confirm the theory...this sugest faith is an opperative in the process.... At the least those involved must have faith that negitive or postive as to the hunt some good or forward progress will be part of the outcome...is this not faith?

My point is faith must play a part in selecting how to spend research dollars. The science may be supportive but at some point the decision process possibly calls upon faith in the work to date.

The SETI project calls upon faith one could think... If no faith in the prospect of a result why would folk involve themselves in the project.
I suppose the dollars one is paid releases one from having faith but the folk providing the dollars must they not have faith..

Faith need not be a word only used to descibe hope in spiritual beings and its use can happily extend to a hope of the existence of many things that support or move back a scientific theory.

alex:):):)

[renormalised]

Precisely, Alex. You hit the nail on the head rather elegantly there :)

Scientists are human, and despite all the protestations to the contrary that have been brought up in this forum, ad infinitum, "faith" plays a part in science. You want rigorously "pure science"...leave it to robots. They care not for anything. Neither the theory, the experiment or the outcome. They just take data and spit out answers according to their programming. The answer they give is the answer they give. The scientific method is all about testing hypotheses in order to be able to falsify them and therefore either reject or accept their veracity. But to say that faith plays no part in the process is showing one's actual ignorance of what science is because despite the method, scientists do have hope (and faith) in the veracity of their pet ideas. Most do give them away if they're shown to be incorrect but some cling onto them like leeches (witness Hal Arp and the EU fools). When it gets to that stage, that's when the science become pathological, inconsistent, incoherent and illogical.

The politicians that fund the science projects (and that includes many uni admins) have to have faith in what the scientists are doing because they haven't a clue about anything that they're doing. 99% have had little or no science training whatsoever. You only have to look at the parlous state of funding for science and both the public and private pronouncements of many of them (especially in the US) to see what I mean. Having a ultra-conservative, far right wing, evangelical god botherer who privately believes the planet is only 6000 years old running for president (Mitt Romney) is not a good omen for the scientific community....nor for anyone else for that matter.

[CraigS]

I have no problems with people who admit that their actions are based on faith. Never had have, never will have. I also have no problems with faith being a motivating factor for initiating scientific enquiries. There is true value which eventuates from intuitive inspiration.

What I do have a problem with, is people refusing to admit that their actions have no basis other than pure faith, and then go on to hijack the scientific process, jargon and whatever, to enrol others in the belief that their actions are following that process and principles.

This is what I see manifesting itself in the area of exo-life detection strategies. This then permeates the funding prioritisation process, leading research in a direction which de-prioritises science which does follow the process, (which virtually guarantees advancement of practical human knowledge).

Does no-one else see this perspective ?

Cheers

[renormalised]

All scientist could be accused of doing this at one stage or another. It's not something exclusively reserved for pathological science. I think where you have to be careful is that you don't become zealous to the point where you start to see bogeymen under every rock and start blaming science you don't happen to agree with, in principle, for being the main perps of this sort of action. Many a good scientist, quite a few who are well known, in this field would very much disagree with your position on this and they would be right. You're not a scientist, nor do you have any experience in any of these fields and whilst you may have some valid points, you're not knowledgeable enough, nor are you experienced enough to be making too many pronouncements from the high ground (moral or otherwise) on matters like this. Get into a debate over this with someone with the mileage in these areas and you'd be cut down to size very quickly. Arguing from a philosophical position on these matter is easy enough...anyone can do that. But in order to bolster your position and have some weightiness behind its currency, you need that extra bit to back yourself up. If you don't, your whole position is just a matter of hot air and nothing else.

That's not to say that what I highlighted in your reply doesn't happen and isn't happening. It does. Unfortunately, all too often.

And not just in science.

[CraigS]

See, this is the kind of comment which derails threads.

Why has this discussion suddenly been directed at my personal experience or qualifications, of which no-one here has any detailed knowledge of, anyway ?

The topic is not about me.

Please address the topic .. not the person.

I am irrelevant to the topic or issue, and I am more than happy to openly acknowledge this.
:)

Cheers

[renormalised]

It was done in the context of the post. The many numbers of threads you, yourself, have posted on this and your general philosophical leaning bears out your position about this. Since you have deigned to "attack" those that hold the position that they do, I have only brought to everyone's attention where your own position and feelings on this, would be countered by those that not only have a stake in the science you're criticising, but also have vastly more knowledge and experience in this field than yourself. In which case, your own knowledge and experience are very much at the forefront here, and open to question along with theirs (or anyone else, for that matter). You made this particular topic about yourself by openly criticising the science and the methods behind the topic at hand whilst you have made no effort to explain your own take on the science involved from the perspective and the corpus of knowledge present in that science. You're precisely coming from the same emotive and subjective PoV about this as you're blaming those others for. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I'm not saying that what I highlighted in your post doesn't happen. It does. But you have to be careful that you're not putting yourself unwittingly into the same position as those that deliberately obfuscate the science are, by taking the "moral" high ground on this. You'd be easily accused of being the pot that called the kettle black.

Debate like this will only derail a thread where it starts to become taken too personally. Or it devolves into a slanging match that gets heated. I have no intention of doing either.

[CraigS]

Once again, I am perplexed by this accusation ..
I have not consciously set out to 'attack' anyone .. these issues I have pointed out, are to do with missing rationale. The appropriate response when this is pointed out by anyone, is to respond with information as to where something may have been overlooked, misinterpreted, or point out some other more subtle aspects. These accusations of my having 'attacked' anyone are from my perspective, simply bizarre ! I have had cause to defend however, due to personal attacks on myself.


I have published many threads which discuss and detail the 'ins and outs' about abiogenesis, remote spectroscopy, the technical specifications of instruments being used to remotely detect exo-life and the statistical 'arguments' for and against the existence of exo-life. I have thus supported and documented my perspectives in that track record. The above is yet another baseless accusation.


What exactly is 'high moral ground", and where did this judgement come from ?

[xelasnave]

I wonder what ways we could determine if life exists way out there.
I posted a link about a chap considering looking for light polution.
I thought it was crazy to be honest but who knows. At least someone is thinking about the matter and others will no doubt.
Hopefully we may see some direction which makes a consolidated approach and that faith in such projects can be deemed reasonable because there is reasonable scientific foundation.
Looking for light polution seems crazy but many things we use daily were once crazy ideas...and thank goodness that some of the folk had faith to follow their ideas .. it may be difficult to find happy steps between the crazy idea and the scientific detail but I suggest there is a process.
We need all kinds of folk dreamers, doers accountants politicians and even lawyers...

AND we need the various approaches to ideas and issues that seem to cause folk to get upset here at times...and so I plead with all my friends to be kind to each other and not take issue at a personal level.
Although I admit I do love the debates here even the slanging matches ..it is all good.

So what program should we look to...does the guy seeking light polution as a tag for ET have a case and who else may need support or control..
alex:):):)

[Robh]

Hi Alex,

I've seen something on this before.
Found here ...
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-city-reveal-civilization.html

Regards, Rob

[renormalised]

It's not worth trying to point out where you "attack" others simply because it will go the same way every other conversation/post like this ends up going. Since you obviously can't see where it is that you do this and find it perplexing that people should point this out to you, it'd be better for all concerned not to push the matter any further. It's one of the reasons why I don't like posting here anymore simply because wires get crossed about philosophical issues. And then things start to devolve into slanging matches about those issues. The only thing I can simply say is that there are more perspectives here than your own, Craig.

Let's just agree to disagree.

[renormalised]

The only problem I see with looking for the light pollution approach, Alex, is that for anything like this to be even remotely detectable over any distance at all, the civilisation pumping out the stray light would have to be emitting a staggeringly huge amount of light!!!!. We're pretty profligate with wasting energy, but so far as light pollution goes we'd hardly be detectable at any interstellar distance at all. Even with a very large scope, to be able to see the lights of cities from interstellar distances you'd need a scope many kilometers across. We're nowhere near capable of deploying a scope of such a size and won't be for awhile yet.

[CraigS]

For those interested in hearing more about the implications of The Infinite Universe idea, Multiverses and QM Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI), I discovered this awesome Youtube … (be warned, its 1hr 18 mins long but the first 20 minutes tackles just about every point raised in this thread). It is well worthwhile downloading however … in my view, Greene successfully brings together many of this issues we have had extreme difficulty in dealing with in this thread. I highly recommend this one !

Its a debate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJqpNudIss4) between Amir Aczel, Lecturer in Mathematics and Philosophy, Uni of Massachusetts Boston and author of 'Fermats Last Theorem' (who takes the stance of skeptical physical world applicability) and Brian Greene, Prof of Physics and Mathematics, Columbia Uni, author of three of, (in my opinion), the best books of recent times: 'Elegant Universe', 'The Fabric of the 'Cosmos' and 'The Hidden Reality'. Greene takes the opposing stance, and is prepared to go along with the direction set by mathematical theory.

In the video, Greene emphasises that the concept of an Infinite Universe, is simply a direction derived from maths, and awaits results of experimental and observational testing in order to establish its validity in the physical world (which may not happen for a looooong time). If one goes with the concept however, there are implications such as the inevitability of the existence of duplicate universes … and anything possible can and will happen eventually in a truly Infinite Universe. The overlap of these ideas with QM/MWI is covered. The implications of a finite universe are also debated.

At the end of the debate, I am even clearer on how to position the concept within Big Bang based Cosmology, and also on the implications as far as ET life, (and its reachability), are concerned.

The calculation presented in my OP of this thread, is well supported in the Infinite Theory and thus has direct impacts on the feasibility (or otherwise) of detecting intelligent ETs similar to ourselves, if one goes along with the Infinite Universe idea.

If one find oneself philosophically opposed to those implications however, then I suggest contemplating a finite universe, instead.

Cheers

[xelasnave]

Thank you Rob that is the meat of the idea.

Carl I doubt if it could develop to be useful but like many ideas the folk behind it will need to present reasons why it could work..they will need to devope their faith and the faith of others to get the resources needed.

AND it may be that a species smarter than us would make light polution outlawed..If I get to run the world you can bet removing light polution will be a first on the to do list;).

I find it encouraging in so far that someone is looking for a way to achieve another impossible dream. I would love to have proof of my long held belief that we are not alone and life is the norm rather than a fluke.

Craig I dont respond as many humans do and I must say personally I never find your approach a difficulty...nor anyones approach for that matter. Any harse wors that folk say of me are usually conservative and most times I can only agree that they have called truth about my behaviour or ideas.

But I have found that others can see one very differently to the way we see ourselves.

I was near heartbroken when someone pointed out that folk saw me as aggressive and prone to solving problems with a violent approach... I have never hurt anyone but with effort I could realise their views were built on perhaps three events spaced over ten years where strong action was required ..still I never hurt anyone but I could see they responded to the potential of my presence rather than my actions...anyways I think you do a wonderful job here bringing matters to the table that you think will interest others so I encourage you to focus on the bright side.

I would also like to encourage all those folk who focus on the negative to focus upon the bright side and put personal issues and responces to one side. One can let things pass with no comment and enjoy the peace of being passive.


AND thanks for the link Craig:thumbsup:.

I had an idea for a telescope that would work like a photo copy scan whereby we collect parrallel beams rather than converging beams as we do now..yes the books say our light comes into our scopes parrallel but they are converging really..however collecting as I suggest could give us same size images:eyepop:... I have faith it will work:D but I bet some folk will doubt it could be done.

alex:):):)

[avandonk]

Never mind our differences and ignorance. I will always say that relying on any ancient book as the only source for any knowledge has major problems. Even the Handbook of Physics and Chemistry if used now or in the future would be next to useless as all the facts it contains are correct but without the underlying theoretical knowledge is just another book.

All of human progress has come from using our imagination to visualize what may be possible and then acting on it. Both thought and action are needed. A lot like sinning!

We will make many mistakes on the way. It is up to each of us to point out these mistakes out in others without malice. Conversely if the facts say that you yourself are wrong there is nothing wrong with changing your mind.

All life is the way for the entire Universe to become self aware. Whatever that means. Where in all your atoms does your conscious mind reside. It is a construct that comes out of complexity. Most of your existence is due to trillions of cells following the laws of chemistry and physics encoded in your genes. This is all done unconsciously. The conscious bit is what is called you.

There is no difference between a plant growing toward the light and a human heading for the pub. Both are reacting to a stimulus. Other examples are obvious!

Bert

[sjastro]

Thanks for the link Craig.

It highlights the differences between mathematicians and theoretical physicists.
Mathematicians are out to seek proof, theoretical physicists the most accurate theory as judged by observation and experiment.
As a result the mathematical work performed by mathematicians is much more rigorous when compared to the physicists.

Einstein made an interesting comment on the General Relativity field equations.
He said the left hand side of the equations were carved in marble, the right hand side made from straw.
The left hand side is textbook Riemannian geometry and is the work of the mathematician, the right hand side is the work is of the theoretical physicist based on factors such as intuition, experience, creativity, "the human factor", yet still requiring to be logically consistent. The right hand side is not an exercise in mathematical rigour yet the reasoning behind it is considered to be one of the greatest insights in the history of physics.

I think Amir Aczel failed to take into consideration that theoretical physicists are not bound to this mathematical rigour.

Regards

Steven

[renormalised]

Aaarrgghhh....mathematicians, no imagination!!! :):P

[renormalised]

Very long vid'...worth watching though.

They should release it on DVD.

[sjastro]

They make up for it by being insane.:P

Regards

Steven

[renormalised]

That's what happens to most of the brilliant one :):P

[CraigS]

I think Greene pointed out that theoretical Physics is very much the 'art' of choosing the best mathematics to provide the explanation, which fits observed data, and can be further tested. I whole-heartedly concur with this perspective .. and I know many other scientists do also.

I think Greene's main point was probably in direct support of theoretical physics development. If a theory is predictably unverifiable or untestable from the outset, then I feel that its unreality status should be re-affirmed as such .. and Greene did this admirably in the case of the Infinite Universe.

I was impressed by the amount of ground they covered during this rap session. Great vid IMO.

Cheers

[Robh]

Thanks for that Craig.

Very interesting. I saw it more as a conversation than a debate.
I thought Amir Aczel brought a philosophical perspective to the conversation.
Amir did a great job in baiting Brian Greene to justify the position of the theoretical physicist.

To me, it highlighted the continuing struggle to build an accurate model of the current observations.
You need the theoreticians (mathematicians) to make sense of the data. And they aren't aways right.
As Amir pointed out, a developed theory or model may not turn out to match reality.
Example, the geocentric model of the universe was incorrect.

A major philosophical issue was that of a constructed theoretical universe(s) searching for its own reality.
How do we know if the universe is actually infinite?
How do we know if string theory has any validity?
How do we know multiple universes actually exist?

In a sense, our observations are not leading us to a model but our created models are searching for observations that can validate one of them.

I think Brian's responses were well balanced. He was interesting and very good at explaining himself.
He emphasised the point that if at any time theory did not match reality, he would be happy to abandon it.
As he said, life is too short to waste all of it heading in the wrong direction.

Regards, Rob

[renormalised]

That's the problem with science....you can't test a theory because your science is incapable of doing so (i.e. you have neither the technology or the knowledge), so you abandon it, saying it's impossible (as most do), or "unreal". The first part is unfortunate because you never know where your science will lead you if you're not willing to sweat it out and take the risk and the second part is nothing more than arrogant hubris because you're unable and/or unwilling to counternance the possibilities. If all scientists thought like that, we'd have never gone to the Moon or anywhere else for that matter. We'd still be flying in hot air balloons and riding in horse drawn buggies.

That's not to say we shouldn't be rational and sensible about how we approach our science. We should. But we should also be willing to dream, go out on a limb, break convention and even face ridicule for the things we do. If we don't, we'll get nowhere.

[CraigS]

Sure .. but I can't see that's a big problem.

One of the basic principles in science is that reality is only ever as good as one's current model allows one to see.

The idea that a 'reality' exists beyond this visibility provided by scientific models, in itself, can easily be distinguished as 'non-reality'. This is also a fundamental philosophical difference between seeking 'truth', and observing the physical world. It is also a dividing line between religion/faith fantasy, (whatever one calls it), and science.

The models are always incomplete and, in retrospect, they may have been wildly 'wrong', (I prefer 'imprecise'), .. but by following the process, successive approximations using feasible technologies and experimentation of the present, strangely enough, usually ends in 'truing up' the picture.

Successive approximations employing incremental steps over time, accumulates into a pile of verifiable knowledge .. and it works. Its not a weakness in science .. its a strength!

For me, it is clear that quantum leaps of faith, easily and immediately contributes towards a major widespread loss of confidence .. with all its deleterious implications. If this is done under the guise of 'Science', then Science cops the blame. This is the reason for a perceived 'inflexibility', or lack of 'open-mindedness' in mainstream science. If there is a reason for it, then I maintain this not the same as an automatic, unconscious, unthinking, close minded behaviour.

There is also plenty of scope for a balance.

Searching for the unknown will always require a component of 'faith'. This does not have to preclude leaving verifiable evidence in one's wake, for future generations to build upon, however.

Cheers

[renormalised]

It becomes a big problem when what's being accepted as "reality" through theory turns out to be a load of BS in the final analysis, and those that tow the accepted paradigm can't or won't change.



True. However one should always remain sceptical of their current model, no matter what any of the observations and experiments tell you.



Neither religion or science are about seeking the "truth", simply because neither would know what that really was. Truth is as subjective as any one individuals take on things, so in fact there is no absolute truth. Science is about understanding, religion is about following (blindly, in most cases).



If something is wrong, Craig, it's wrong :). No matter how you want to define "imprecise". Imprecision comes in a matter of degrees and even things which are correct, fundamentally, can still be imprecise in nature.

It's not so much as "truing up" the picture as it's a further gain of insight into whatever you're looking at. It could be the case of the old maxim "the more you find out, the less you realise you actually know".



Agreed, wholeheartedly. But quite often it's the quantum leaps which send our science far ahead of where it would normally have ended up.



Only in those that are hidebound by convention and orthodoxy does any quantum leap of "faith" bring about a "loss of confidence". Mainly because they're not good enough to make those jumps and advance in other directions. However, you are correct for stating that sometimes a jump can be deleterious, if it's truly going off into cloud cuckoo land. Closed minded behaviour is not by definition automatic, unconscious or unthinking. On the contrary, it is usually deliberate and very conscious. And don't for once think that mainstream science isn't riddled with that sort of malady. It is.



Yeah, but not next to the scope. It might jam up the mount if it gets caught under one of the axes :):P

Or, you could use the metaphorical balance to weigh up your theories :):P



Agreed.

[Robh]

Craig,

I differ in my point of view on this. I think there is an ingrained reality to the universe waiting to be discovered. Sure, one of our current models may be our best world view of this fundamental reality but which model are we talking about? This was the point of the dialogue between Amir and Brian. Some of our models seem very removed from our perception of what this reality is. Now, it could be the case that one of these creative models does actually depict the real world but it might also be pure science fiction.

In the end, observational, data will sift out fiction from fact, as it did, for example, with the Steady State Theory. But you can't put every current theory in the same batch as the best view of the world. And, if you can't match a particular model or theory to the observational data and forces that describe our universe then it can't reflect this reality.

Regards, Rob

[sjastro]

The other feature that differentiates mathematicians from theoretical physicists is that "pure" mathematicians are not interested in reality.

One of the functions of the theoretical physicist is to select mathematics that can be physically interpreted. The physical interpretation however can lead to the subjective "degrees of reality".

For example the Schwarzschild metric for static black holes contains two singularities, one being the physical singularity at r=0, the other being a mathematical or coordinate singularity at the event horizon r=2GM/c^2.

Mathematicians have shown the coordinate singularity is not "real" as there are a number of co-ordinate systems in which the Schwarzschild metric can be expressed where the singularity at the event horizon vanishes.
The trade off however is that radial coordinate r can no longer be readily interpreted as a measurement of distance.

Needless to say many theoretical physicists are not terribly interested in these solutions and see the co-ordinate singularity as "more real" when compared to a r variable that has no physical reality.

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

Hi Rob;


That's Ok Rob .. I appreciate your viewpoint and that's fine … beyond this point in the discussion, I think we really are at a science/metaphysical boundary, (or an observable horizon).

If there is no arbiter or 'describer' of this 'reality' (believed to extend beyond our 'best-fit' descriptions), and our best-fit descriptions do not describe it, then why believe there is one at all .?. other than perhaps, to motivate oneself to improve and extend our existing descriptions of this boundary ?

For me, it really doesn't matter whether a reality exists beyond our best-fit descriptions or not ... the only thing which matters, is that which enables us to visualise the boundaries and perhaps use predictions as clues as to where to go next. (The clues aren't reality until there's evidence).

This 'reality' (assumed to exist beyond our best-fit theories), may not be able to be described in an understandable way by our brains anyway. If it can't be described by scientific terminology and process (resulting in verifiable evidence), then one might as well believe a science fiction book portrays reality! How can you tell the difference?

Verifiable observational evidence .. if this doesn't exist, its not yet reality.

For me, the only thing which matters, in our physical world .. are our 'best-fit' theories, which build on past verifiable data, and making these then align with present-day verifiable observations.

Not if it has observational evidence behind it!
I got the distinct feeling that Amir is just like all of us as we age … we get locked into this belief that because we have some retrospective experience, we are somehow, better able to predict the purely unknown. A corollary of this might tell us that a child can't possibly do better at this than an adult ... but, if the future is not fundamentally predictable (or presently known), then the age-given world view is folly .. and a child, who has no past history, and only senses the present, sees the present undisturbed. To me, this pure 'intuition' is of greater value in exploring the absolute unknown, than age-acquired experience.

I'm not saying everything is unpredictable, either .. but I am saying that if we have no idea of what this unsupported, believed, supposed underlying unknown 'reality' is, then the benefit of unrelated hindsight, misleads us. The only reality is then, past-verified observational evidence which takes us up to the present.
The future is unknown to everyone, and so, the present view, at least enables us to break-free of past biases, to sense what is actually happening in the present, and go where the data takes us.

Agreed. But it does then reflect a 'best-fit' view, it is definitely verifiable data from the past, and still available in the present, which defines reality.

Prediction then takes an another guise and perspective, (as outlined above).

Cheers

[CraigS]

I think we also need to be cautious when reading or listening to theoretical physicist 'speak'. Greene, at least, was clear on what constitutes reality to him.
Somehow though, I don't get the feeling that the 'theoretical physicists' you mention above, necessarily define 'reality' in as clear-cut terms as Greene does. :question:
This is one reason why I have high regard for Greene. He lets you know his definitions as he speaks .. one may not agree with them .. but at least he's bothered to deliberate on them to the extent that he is a able to articulate them clearly, and sticks to them consistently.

It makes a huge difference, I find.

Cheers

[CraigS]

Another aspect which was clear, was that in spite of the multiple universes resulting from taking on the idea of an Infinite Universe, all these universes are all necessarily, still constrained within the known laws of Physics. (Like constant c).

In spite of this, he mentioned, that the fine tuning parameters can vary between distinct universes. If this is the case, then it is likely that we would never be able to detect those universes (even if they were right under our noses), because we are attuned to only our permutation of the fine tuning parameters.

This would suggest that even if they existed, they might as well not be real to us .. as they could never interact with us ... nor us, with them.

Cheers

[Robh]

Craig,

Before I say anything else, let me again post my view that the universe has a discoverable reality and this will be reflected in the data we obtain and the observations we make. Our perception of the universe is through our senses but it is the mind which analyses the structure and behaviour of the universe.

The way science has progressed through the ages does lend support to your best fit theory notion. New data forces re-evaluation of theory which is then modified or expanded to push the boundary of knowledge further. If each new best fit theory did not better explain reality (observation and data) then the scientific process has failed. An analysis of these best fit theories would lead us to believe that theory is convergent to an assumed reality.
Now consider this ...

Suppose we find a theory of everything, in that all forces, particles and their interactions are modelled within the one theory. This theory explains all observed physical phenomena for particles and gravitational phenomena and leaves no unanswered questions in this field. More accurate observations in the future continually confirm the theory. It is, however, not the end of discovery but new revelations would fall under the umbrella of this theory. Would you say that this theory is a best fit or is it the theory that explains the reality or character of this universe i.e. the theory that we have converged to?

Regards, Rob

[Robh]

Craig,

I think in the video, Brian does an analogy of multiple universes as the slices of bread in a loaf. Somewhere in that, he mentions that if two particle were slammed together and we couldn't account for some lost energy, that perhaps this lost energy could have ended up in another universe, an adjacent slice of bread. It may be possible that these universes could interact but how you would verify or measure this is another puzzle.

Regards, Rob

[CraigS]

I would say it is our best fit theory for understanding the universe. I would have no idea as to whether it explains something more beyond our models, (from the mind), or our observations, (from the senses). If it works for us, then that's all that matters.

'Converged' to me, just means we got a handle on how to look at it.

In my perspective, the universe doesn't care whether it converged for us or not ... it just keeps doin' its thing ... just because we saw a theory converge, doesn't say anything beyond that view ... should it ..?.. why ..?.. how would you know that ..?..

What would you say if such a theory doesn't come together? Does this then mean that science has failed, and we should abandon it just because we expected it to converge .. and it didn't?

Or does it mean that's just the way we are constrained to look at the universe ?

Cheers

[CraigS]

Aha !
I suppose leakage of energy from our universe to another one would require the 'recipient' universe to be of a similar 'blood type' as ours. :)

Ie: I guess, in an infinite universe there would exist another universe whose fine tuning parameters could still be within these fine tolerances, I suppose … perhaps sufficiently enough for us to recognise, and maybe communicate with them … but until violation of conservation of energy is observed in this universe, none of this is reality.

I've been thinking since last night. I really appreciate this dialogue with you Rob .. I'm starting to see where the reactions from in others might becoming from. Its easy to assume that we're all off the same playing field .. but clearly, we aren't.

For me, if something is unknown .. that's exactly what it means .. ie: 'unknown'. I get the distinct feeling that others cannot accept the implications of 'unknown'. Filling in the 'unknown' with supposition is fine .. but that doesn't alter the reality that what we don't know, is still not known, in spite of the supposition.

If it is unknown whether the universe has a reality able to to be discovered by us, then all the supposition in the world ('trajectories' etc), still doesn't alter this. What does alter this, is observational evidence and our perspective afforded by the tools we've developed for observing it and … the means we've developed by using those tools, to manipulate it.

Much appreciate the conversation.

Cheers

[xelasnave]

So very interesting:thumbsup:.
You guys sum so much up I wish I could say.

Craig it is hard to hold facts in your hand and not want to build something with them.. I think of them as blocks that can be rearranged to build various outcomes and not to become too focused on one outcome as the only possibility.

Those who present their ideas on a matter have an audience because they are leaders in their field and their arguements will be supportive of their take on the world er universe ... ideas often have support that makes them difficult to roll but they still may not have assembled their facts to resemble nature.

AND so I wish to introduce the concept of gut feel:D;)... what do you do if your gut tells you.."this is just plain wrong" (on occassion where all knowledge accepts your rejected premise):shrug: ... there will be those who need to gaurd the current paridim but there must be those that question it. AND each side must respect the need for the other.

Our sophistication can prove our enemy if speculation with facts is eliminated:).

AND is there common sence;)

I am for strict review it breeds a stronger beast.

alex:):):)

[renormalised]

I would hope so. If not, it'd "congeal" and then we'd be up the proverbial creek, for sure :):P