Go Back   IceInSpace > General Astronomy > Astronomy Books and Media
Register FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #181  
Old 23-03-2011, 01:51 PM
CraigS's Avatar
CraigS
Unpredictable

CraigS is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
Episode #3: Dead or Alive

I actually found this episode to be closer to the mark, (scientifically), than some of the others. I found it a little boring, also. They spent about 50% of it getting to the conclusion on why Io has volcanos .. I got the impression that they were spreading out the content to fill the program and meet duration targets of the production.

Nonetheless, the most profound points, (for me), came right at the end and frankly, for me, make this by far, the best episode I've seen because of the following words:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cox
They're driven by the same laws that shape and control our own world .. and so … in many ways, its a miracle that we exist at all.

Until we went there .. we had no idea of what the Laws of Nature could produce.

The most important lesson .. is that the laws of nature can create a variety of different worlds with the tiniest of changes.

We now see how the life and death of planets & moons is governed by interconnections which span the Solar System.. and we wouldn't be here .. if it wasn't for those connections.
These are scientifically valid statements and there is A LOT of theory supporting them. See: Chaos Theory and Complexity.

Read 'em again … and then ask how tiny might the changes have to be … and how many places are needed before the tiny changes occur just once at the right time, and how many connections, to result in a single instance of life ?

Perhaps then, it might be understood why the universe might have to be so big, for a single instance of life to occur. (A perfectly scientifically valid proposition, coming from this perspective).

These are not trivial wishy-washy points (unusual for Cox ).

I'm impressed that they've finally emphasised what I hoped they were on about from the first episode … diversity of environments .. driven by the Laws of Nature .. leading to life.

Cheers
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 23-03-2011, 09:17 PM
shelltree's Avatar
shelltree (Shelley)
Stargazer

shelltree is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 842
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS View Post

These are scientifically valid statements and there is A LOT of theory supporting them. See: Chaos Theory and Complexity.

Read 'em again … and then ask how tiny might the changes have to be … and how many places are needed before the tiny changes occur just once at the right time, and how many connections, to result in a single instance of life ?

Perhaps then, it might be understood why the universe might have to be so big, for a single instance of life to occur. (A perfectly scientifically valid proposition, coming from this perspective).

These are not trivial wishy-washy points (unusual for Cox ).

I'm impressed that they've finally emphasised what I hoped they were on about from the first episode … diversity of environments .. driven by the Laws of Nature .. leading to life.

Cheers
This had me really excited because it makes a lot of sense and to be honest, is something I have never considered before. I have always "assumed" that other forms of life must be out there, however small but when strong links between Chaos Theory are made, is it any wonder that we haven't found other life close by? Who is to say that an expanse as big as our Universe isn't needed to harbour only a few instances of life?

Not to mention the endless possibilities for life from many different environments. If life can survive on Earth in extreme conditions, then why not somewhere else in the Solar System or anywhere else in the Universe?

Interested to watch the last episode of Wonders as I believe it touches on life in extreme environments.
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 24-03-2011, 08:19 AM
CraigS's Avatar
CraigS
Unpredictable

CraigS is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
Hi Shelley;

I have stated that I have no particular hang-ups about whether exo-life exists or not ... I really don’t care one way or the other. But, until a single instance of exo-life IS found, both perspectives are equally valid. I have been called a ‘fence-sitter’ here at IIS but as a result of taking this position, I have seen something quite extraordinary ...

In the General Chat thread ‘Propositions ...’ Bert’s words are a great example of precise, scientifically sound wording (in support of the ‘possibility that exo-life exists’ camp):

Quote:
We can however by observation and inference conclude, given the right conditions, life will inevitably occur, given the correct conditions.
Which hooks up very nicely with the theme of ‘Wonders of the Solar System’ which attempts to focus on the universality of the Laws of Physics (ie: they work everywhere) and yet, they result in huge variations as exhibited by diversity of exo-environments.

An adjunct view supporting the contrary, (ie: against the ‘possibility that exo-life exists’ camp), usually argues many aspects, (not the least of which is that there is no evidence of exo-life, as yet), but for me, this analogy demonstrates the thinking behind it, to perfection (credits again, to Bert):

Quote:
The laws of Physics govern what happens when a brick on a rubber band is pulled up an inclined plane of carborundum (sand) paper. No matter how many times you run the experiment every outcome is different. It is called a complex system.
(There are many other examples, but I love the simplicity of this one).

If the emergence of life in the universe follows this same pattern, it can still obey all of the known Laws of Physics, but still may not have a repeatable outcome. (There is evidence that this may be the case, not the least of which, is the huge the diversity of exo-environments staring us square in the face).

It will all change once a single instance of exo-life is found, mind you.


It is also world of pain to argue this contrary view. The idea I mention above, is really a conclusion I have come to myself and I don’t think I’ve ever seen it presented anywhere. I doubt we’ll see this view in ‘Wonders of the Solar System’. Until I meet someone who fully understands Complexity/Chaos, I’m not sure it is likely to gain any acceptance anywhere, except amongst the ‘crank fringe’ elements of society. Which is a pity, because as far as I can see, it is just as valid as the other side of the coin.

In the meantime, what I can say, is that if one keeps an open mind, one ends up seeing a lot more in science, than with a closed mind. The trick is knowing when to keep it open ... and when to close it (a little). Don’t ask me how to keep it all in balance ... I think it has to do with knowledge and the only way to acquire it, is to soak it all up .. and keep opinions separated from the reality.

Cheers

Last edited by CraigS; 24-03-2011 at 09:05 AM. Reason: Typo
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 24-03-2011, 08:49 AM
supernova1965's Avatar
supernova1965 (Warren)
Buddhist Astronomer

supernova1965 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Phillip Island,VIC, Australia
Posts: 4,073
Craig I think the sad thing is that you don't care one way or the other. The trick with an open mind is also to know when it is open or closed
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 24-03-2011, 09:10 AM
CraigS's Avatar
CraigS
Unpredictable

CraigS is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by supernova1965 View Post
Craig I think the sad thing is that you don't care one way or the other. The trick with an open mind is also to know when it is open or closed
Its only sad because you see it that way and that does not make it reality.

I'm not sad .. in the least !

Take a look at the fun we had in this thread !

Do you have any comments/feedback/questions about the Complexity/Chaos view of it all ?

Cheers
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 24-03-2011, 09:20 AM
supernova1965's Avatar
supernova1965 (Warren)
Buddhist Astronomer

supernova1965 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Phillip Island,VIC, Australia
Posts: 4,073
Yes anyone who claims to completely understand Complexity/Chaos is insane.
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 24-03-2011, 09:25 AM
CraigS's Avatar
CraigS
Unpredictable

CraigS is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
Warren,

This is completely off topic, but I am very interested ..
You refer to yourself as a Buddhist Astronomer .. and I've always wondered what that means.
Don't get me wrong .. I'm not having a go at you about this … I actually think Buddhism is a really cool philosophy .. and it doesn't have to be taken religiously. I'd love to understand what defines a Buddhist Astronomer (seriously).

Could you describe it for us ?
And I do respect you views on this .. very much so.

Cheers
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 24-03-2011, 09:26 AM
supernova1965's Avatar
supernova1965 (Warren)
Buddhist Astronomer

supernova1965 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Phillip Island,VIC, Australia
Posts: 4,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS View Post
Warren,

This is completely off topic, but I am very interested ..
You refer to yourself as a Buddhist Astronomer .. and I've always wondered what that means.
Don't get me wrong .. I'm not having a go at you about this … I actually think Buddhism is a really cool philosophy .. and it doesn't have to be taken religiously. I'd love to understand what defines a Buddhist Astronomer (seriously).

Could you describe it for us ?
And I do respect you views on this .. very much so.

Cheers
Its very simple I am a Buddhist who also happens to be an Amateur Astronomer. My Buddhist name is Tenzin Khonchog. A full discussion of Buddhism would be a lifetime discussion and may be quickly locked as it is known as a religion although I don't consider it a religion myself.
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 24-03-2011, 09:45 AM
CraigS's Avatar
CraigS
Unpredictable

CraigS is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by supernova1965 View Post
Its very simple I am a Buddhist who also happens to be an Amateur Astronomer. My Buddhist name is Tenzin Khonchog. A full discussion of Buddhism would be a lifetime discussion and may be quickly locked as it is known as a religion although I don't consider it a religion myself.
Yep. I agree with you .. to me, it is a philosophy (although many do take it to be a religion).
So, the philosophy part influences thinking about how to look at things around us and the universe, eh ?

Cheers
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 24-03-2011, 10:49 AM
mswhin63's Avatar
mswhin63 (Malcolm)
Registered User

mswhin63 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Para Hills, South Australia
Posts: 3,622
watching the last episode I notice that Brian managed to give astrology a kick in the guts.
Pretty sure that didn't go down too well for a some people.
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 24-03-2011, 10:57 AM
CraigS's Avatar
CraigS
Unpredictable

CraigS is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by mswhin63 View Post
watching the last episode I notice that Brian managed to give astrology a kick in the guts.
Pretty sure that didn't go down too well for a some people.
Mind you, I did hear him say in the 'Jupiter' segment .. ."the astrologers were proven right" !!!

… He then followed up with … "Of course, Astrology is a load of rubbish !"

Can't really blame him for those comments … although, they were pretty bluntly stated … and highly opinionated (and fundamentally on the mark).

Cheers
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 24-03-2011, 01:52 PM
supernova1965's Avatar
supernova1965 (Warren)
Buddhist Astronomer

supernova1965 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Phillip Island,VIC, Australia
Posts: 4,073
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS View Post
Yep. I agree with you .. to me, it is a philosophy (although many do take it to be a religion).
So, the philosophy part influences thinking about how to look at things around us and the universe, eh ?

Cheers
And scientists are actually starting to say that Buddhism has a strong basis in science. Meaning that a lot of what Buddhism say's is being proven by science. You just have to search google for Buddhism and Science to see how much they have in common. And the Dalia Lama is very interested in astronomy and science he is one of us he has his own Telescope and uses it often I believe.
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 24-03-2011, 02:15 PM
CraigS's Avatar
CraigS
Unpredictable

CraigS is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by supernova1965 View Post
And scientists are actually starting to say that Buddhism has a strong basis in science. Meaning that a lot of what Buddhism say's is being proven by science. You just have to search google for Buddhism and Science to see how much they have in common. And the Dalia Lama is very interested in astronomy and science he is one of us he has his own Telescope and uses it often I believe.
Yes, very cool ... we should transfer this conversation over to the Science Forum: Philosophy of Science thread (if you're willing …. I'm interested, and game to give it a go if you are …) .. I'll start it off with a question ...

Cheers
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 30-03-2011, 10:52 AM
CraigS's Avatar
CraigS
Unpredictable

CraigS is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
Episode #5: Aliens

Hi All;

Intrepid, undaunted cub reporter (CraigS) dares once again, to publish his perspectives on this episode.

For what its worth, on this hyper-controversial-at-IIS series, here we go ...
Actually, sorry to let you down folks, I couldn’t find any factual issues/flaws in this episode. Most of what was presented, is pure mainstream science’s interpretations on the topic of exo-life.

I actually think they did a good job on presenting the main arguments underpinning exploration of the Solar System for exo-life.

But there is a paradox left for us right at the end, which I don’t believe they are aware of. The argument goes:

Extreme environments: life is found on Earth in extreme environments. Life can exist, and flourish in such environments;

Water: is correlated with wherever life is found on Earth;

Mars: Mars is dry, but geological formations seem to imply large volumes of liquid water have existed there in the past. Methane, (a key indicator of life metabolism), perhaps generated by archaea bacteria, is detected, and seems to be seasonally dependent. Robotic probes have found Gypsum crystals, known to require liquid water for formation, on Earth. (Note: there are many ‘flavours’ of methane, many of which are not connected with life, folks. This post encapsulates some of this aspect. This thread has more).

Europa: May have large liquid water oceans, (twice as much as Earth’s) and have red ‘stripes’, which may represent life metabolic by-products;

Richard Hoover makes an appearance. (Check out the link for more discussions on this guy’s research, if interested). He shows life can exist in ice.

Ok .. so the inference is, that there may well be bacterial life forms elsewhere in the Solar System, but Cox concludes there’ll be no civilisations. This is what makes us ‘special’ and for him, makes this the biggest ‘Wonder of the Solar System’.

So, the paradox ?

If civilisations make Earth ‘special’ then why are we using Earth and its environments, as our guide for inferring the existence of exo-life ? (Eg: in the Solar System).

Answer: (i) Because we have nothing else to go on. (Fair enough .. but remember that fact), and (ii) the Laws of Physics operate everywhere, not just on Earth, (fair enough, also).

None of the evidence cited in the episode tackles the question of the Origin of Life. My view is that there is a huge leap of faith required, (with totally unknown steps in the middle), in making the connection between the fundamental Laws of Physics and Chemistry and the Emergence of Life. The correlation of the presence of water with life, works on Earth, but what of the high chances that life simply follows water on Earth, because it needs it to survive ?

The Emergence of Life is a completely different discussion, not dealt with in the entire series. I think that SBS, next week on Tuesday at 8:30pm, (same time as ‘Wonders’ was), is a great place for folks, interested in continuing discussions this topic, to check out.

The relationships between Physics, Chemistry and the emergence of life, is a total unknown for us. We are only now developing the tools, which may help us to better understand the science behind how complex life forms behave.

Perhaps the way they behave, is intimately associated with how they originated - it appears to me, that there is a closer relationship between Chaotic and Complex Systems physics, and the Emergence of Life, than between Classical Physics, (like what Cox has presented), and its emergence.

Basing our thinking entirely upon what we know about life on Earth, seems to result in us swamping our thoughts and completely forgetting about what we know that we don’t know .. which is related to the mysterious connections between how self-organising order, emerges from chaos.

Hope that makes sense .. if it doesn't, I recommend we start a new thread about the show on SBS next week, which is about Chaos Theory and Fractals an continue discussions there.

My 2 cents worth. Comments welcome.

Cheers
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 11:48 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement