Worms

[avandonk]

In my opinion life is an inevitable outcome of random events. We are not unique or special.

Life is to be savoured and enjoyed. If it has happened once in a very large Universe it has happened countless times.

Do you really think that the bacteria on your elbow really worship you? They just do what bacteria do. Are we any different?

We are just simple primates on an insignificant planet well away from the dangers of the rest of our galaxie (I hope!).

Nematodes are everywhere and fill every niche or environment. You are looking at your ancient relos.

Bert

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Chaos theory tells us that even if the exact same initial conditions occur elsewhere, the outcome will not necessarily be the same.
Further, unless we know the exact initial conditions under which life emerged here, we can never predict the outcome, elsewhere.

These are mathematical certainties.

Cheers

How can you have a mathematical certainty when the underlying mathematics itself is completely uncertain. That's a contradiction in terms.

Actually, it's a complete invalidation of the underlying mathematics. Or maybe, more accurately, we just don't understand it to begin with.

To be truthful, all things being equal and chaos being the operative norm, then why are we even here ourselves??. By all accounts, this universe should be utterly devoid of life...all universes should be. Yet here we are. The fact that we are here, which is a 100% probability, points to a flaw in the underlying assumptions of Chaos. Chaos might tell you that despite the initial conditions you cannot know the outcomes after the fact or that they might or mightn't be the same, the laws of probability would point to the fact that given all the possible outcomes and an infinite amount of time, the most likely outcome is the one in which you find yourself in.

Another example of the uncertainty principle and the relative state formulation. Despite the odds against it, if it exists, then so it does. And all the other possibilities exist as well, but we only see that one possibility in which we make the observation of its truth or physical reality.

So, if the chances of life are good here, all things being equal, it will be elsewhere. And even if all things aren't equal, that still doesn't preclude any chance. Just means we maybe looking for a long time before we find any.

Here's something interesting to ponder. Let's just say we are it, in this Universe. However, we know that there are many parallel universe branching off this one. What if, in any one universe, there is only one instance of life, or at least one instance of technologically capable intelligent life. Given the number of possible universes, there'll be an infinite number of technological civilisations, or even an infinite number of life bearing planets. How's that for lateral thinking

Or, if we believe Chaos to the letter, there shouldn't be any. Then, what in the hell are we??!!!.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by avandonk

There used to be a cartoon of crabs in a pool called the Pooliverse. Every now and again a dog would stick his head in. He was called the great eyeballs in the sky. Everytime the crabs made progress they would smugly say it was a great step sideways for crabkind!

Sound familiar?

Bert

Sounds an awful lot like science

[xelasnave]

It surprises me that speculation in matters that no one has specific knowledge about can get so ...er possitional... and that is where I come from on many matters... show me the dead cat and I will say you have a dead cat... equate dead cat for dark matter etc
I say there are cities on Mars below the surface and I chalenge anyone to prove I am wrong...with real evidence not just logical inconsistences in my argument.
If anyone will pay for fuel I will take you there

alex

[renormalised (Carl)]

You would have to go there to prove or disprove in either case. Since a Martian city underground is, by definition, hidden from view, its existence or non existence cannot be proven. Or even hinted at, unless indirect evidence was found.

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by renormalised

You would have to go there to prove or disprove in either case. Since a Martian city underground is, by definition, hidden from view, its existence or non existence cannot be proven. Or even hinted at, unless indirect evidence was found.

Thats why I want fuel money....give me the fuel money and I will prove I am wrong.
alex

[renormalised (Carl)]

You want more than a tank full of petrol, Alex

A 200MW nuke reactor, 4 VASIMIR engines and 400 ton of liquid H2 might get you there an back in relative safety and comfort

And who knows, your martians might be intelligent worms

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by renormalised

You want more than a tank full of petrol, Alex

A 200MW nuke reactor, 4 VASIMIR engines and 400 ton of liquid H2 might get you there an back in relative safety and comfort

And who knows, your martians might be intelligent worms

Thank goodness you understand the cost of interplantetary travell Carl with the discounts in terrestial travell I did not want to be the one to mention a figure dollar wise...

Martians are indeed worms..book worms... thats where we got the phrase you know..very inteligent..that why we call our learners book worms..see it all adds up...

Yes it comes down to money..even at a fraction of a cent per mile we are looking at a large fuel bill...but the price of petrol has nothing to do with there being life on mars ..wouldnt you agree?

alex

[avandonk]

Alex please there is a difference between logical extrapolation and total irrational speculation.

I find any talk of the possibilty of the unprovable as mere speculation. Mars has a very thin atmosphere. It may have bacteria deep in the ground. Cities of sentient beings is just not on as there is no biosphere to support this sort of complex society.

We humans are damaging our life support systems to the point where we wiil have a major problem soon. The Earth will heat up due to our CO2 pollution by at least four degrees. This is before the systems reach equilibrium. We cannot accurately predict the final outcome but it will not be pleasant. Apart from destroying the forests and fisheries we are all at fault by simply being here.

We are using our resources as if we have almost two planets called Earth. For a smart species we are not very bright.

I do not care for me as I will most likely be dead when the the Earth's systems change irreversibly. Goodbye and thanks for all the fish!

Bert

[xelasnave]

Bert speculation is simply that...speculation.
Should it be let lose without restraint..yes of course..it cant go anywhere unless facts support it but there is no reason why speculation can not run where it likes...it is the observer who will determine if there is aq possible reality to be found threw speculation...but lets speculate upon what may be not what is posible given our knowledge and understanding...the key is not to get carried away by anything...we can believe what we select ... the uncertainty principle induceses some to believe that anything is possible in outcome ..I dont buy that but specualtion can be fun....

alex

[CraigS]

Carl;
I will respond to your post #22 .. I am unable to do it tonight, however.
Cheers

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

How can you have a mathematical certainty when the underlying mathematics itself is completely uncertain. That's a contradiction in terms.
Actually, it's a complete invalidation of the underlying mathematics. Or maybe, more accurately, we just don't understand it to begin with.

The mathematical certainty assertion is only applicable to the prediction. There is no invalidation of underlying mathematics.
Fractal geometry has demonstrated that iterations of solution outcomes for non-linear processes, generates the patterns found in nature. Some of these processes have been observed directly. The outcomes of these solution sets is unpredictable. Null results also form part of the subset of solution outcomes. (Ie: non-exo life outcomes).
Self-similarity of features at all scales, is a hallmark feature of fractals. The evolution of fractal features include both order (pattern features) and disorder (chaos). This mixture is what renders prediction not possible. There is no ‘theory’ involved in any of this. It is geometry.

Life processes themselves, feature self-similarity.

We currently have two major working assumptions in mainstream science:

i) life emerged on Earth from pre-biotic processes, themselves emerging from conditions arising from the environments after planetary formation. This includes localised, (to Earth's environment), feedback mechanisms;
ii) life on Earth has been transported from elsewhere, thus providing a feedback mechanism for non-linear iterative processes, which results in a fractal distribution of life, throughout the extent of the feedback mechanism’s reach.

There is growing evidence that chaos plays a role in both the formation, as well as in the evolution, of exo-planetary systems. Although the planetary formation process can proceed through many different channels – or at least many scenarios for planet formation remain viable – all of them lead to dynamical systems that are highly chaotic. Even the most stable end result eg: a well-ordered solar system like our own, displays chaotic behavior over sufficiently long spans of time. (I think you mentioned our planets ‘wandering about’, in the early days).

The emergence of life is thus driven by dynamical processes, (including local environments), known to exhibit chaos.

In the face of such chaos, the results of the planetary formation process requires description in terms of a full distribution of results. Given the enormous variation possible, and the extreme sensitivity to initial conditions, it is demonstrable (from model simulations) that a single outcome of any given dynamical experiment cannot be predicted. There is close alignment between the outcomes of these models (unpredictability and certain macros scale structures), and the progress towards results, observable elsewhere in our universe.

Originally Posted by renormalised

To be truthful, all things being equal and chaos being the operative norm, then why are we even here ourselves??. By all accounts, this universe should be utterly devoid of life...all universes should be. Yet here we are. The fact that we are here, which is a 100% probability, points to a flaw in the underlying assumptions of Chaos. Chaos might tell you that despite the initial conditions you cannot know the outcomes after the fact or that they might or mightn't be the same, the laws of probability would point to the fact that given all the possible outcomes and an infinite amount of time, the most likely outcome is the one in which you find yourself in.

Our presence, is one solution outcome amongst enormous permutations, all of which are critically dependent on other chaotic outcomes like planetary formation (perhaps, even infinite). We represent one instance outcome. The question here is: can we predict the next instance ? Based on the evidence for the chaotic processes which resulted in life, and time-compressed simulations, all of which include knowledge derived from fundamental deterministic physics, we know we cannot predict the next instance.

Originally Posted by renormalised

Another example of the uncertainty principle and the relative state formulation. Despite the odds against it, if it exists, then so it does. And all the other possibilities exist as well, but we only see that one possibility in which we make the observation of its truth or physical reality.

This is predicated on a principle, which is a working assumption. The Chaos/Fractal geometry outcome is based on certainty derived from the basics of geometry and empirical observational evidence.

Originally Posted by renormalised

So, if the chances of life are good here, all things being equal, it will be elsewhere. And even if all things aren't equal, that still doesn't preclude any chance. Just means we maybe looking for a long time before we find any.

Once again .. a philosophical perspective based on working assumptions, which is a perfectly reasonable basis for developing theories .. its just not comparable with the basis of Chaos/Fractal geometry.

Originally Posted by renormalised

Here's something interesting to ponder. Let's just say we are it, in this Universe. However, we know that there are many parallel universe branching off this one. What if, in any one universe, there is only one instance of life, or at least one instance of technologically capable intelligent life. Given the number of possible universes, there'll be an infinite number of technological civilisations, or even an infinite number of life bearing planets. How's that for lateral thinking

Hypothetically speaking ...

Originally Posted by renormalised

Or, if we believe Chaos to the letter, there shouldn't be any. Then, what in the hell are we??!!!.

As mentioned above, a legitimate outcome in Chaos/Fractal geometry. No contradictions here … and no 'beliefs' are required.

I hope the above is logical/rational. I am open to other perspectives such as that coming from philosophical principles such as uncertainty, etc. I feel a need to make sure we are comparing apples with apples. Chaos/Fractal geometry insights do not contradict the Uncertainty basis of QM/QFT/QED etc, and are complementary. The domains as defined by the scales of operation, create a distinction of applicability.


Cheers & Rgds.

PS: I can provide references for any of the points I have presented above. I have chosen not to include these in this post, as I am happy to comply with Carl's preference for developing arguments from first-hand knowledge … perhaps for another time/thread ? ...

[renormalised (Carl)]

Geez, Craig, you did have to come out and write a novel about this!!!!. You're going to make me have to really read through this one. Next time, I hope your pen breaks in half or runs out of ink

[renormalised (Carl)]

You're not going to believe this....my reply was actually too long to post here!!!!!

So, I had to create a word doc of the reply and post it here

14288 characters as opposed to 12000 allowed

I've never before been told, when posting here, of being too verbose

That's a first

[renormalised (Carl)]

Now, who can be accused of writing a novel

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Geez, Craig, you did have to come out and write a novel about this!!!!. You're going to make me have to really read through this one. Next time, I hope your pen breaks in half or runs out of ink.

Originally Posted by renormalised

You're not going to believe this....my reply was actually too long to post here!!!!!

So, I had to create a word doc of the reply and post it here

14288 characters as opposed to 12000 allowed

I've never before been told, when posting here, of being too verbose

That's a first

nyuck .. nyuck .. chuckle … chuckle…
… and you said my response was a novel !

Cheers