ICEINSPACE
Moon Phase
CURRENT MOON
Waxing Crescent 0.9%
|
|

14-12-2011, 08:34 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,926
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robh
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.
|
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
|

14-12-2011, 10:07 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Blue Mountains, Australia
Posts: 1,338
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
|
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
|

14-12-2011, 10:11 PM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 753
|
|
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.
|

14-12-2011, 10:29 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Blue Mountains, Australia
Posts: 1,338
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
|
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
|

14-12-2011, 11:12 PM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 753
|
|
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
|

14-12-2011, 11:20 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,926
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
|
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
|

14-12-2011, 11:47 PM
|
 |
Gravity does not Suck
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
|
|
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  
|

15-12-2011, 12:21 AM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 753
|
|
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.
Last edited by Karls48; 15-12-2011 at 01:11 AM.
|

15-12-2011, 08:17 AM
|
 |
Unpredictable
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
|
|
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
|

15-12-2011, 09:24 AM
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 753
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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. T
Cheers
|
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  - I do not believe in and kind of superior being.
|

15-12-2011, 10:00 AM
|
 |
Unpredictable
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
|
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
|

15-12-2011, 11:14 AM
|
 |
Unpredictable
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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 !
|
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
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.
|
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
|

15-12-2011, 12:56 PM
|
 |
Gravity does not Suck
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
|
|
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  
|

15-12-2011, 01:01 PM
|
 |
No More Infinities
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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 suggests faith is an operative in the process.... At the least those involved must have faith that negative or positive 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 describe 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   
|
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.
Last edited by renormalised; 15-12-2011 at 01:21 PM.
|

15-12-2011, 01:49 PM
|
 |
Unpredictable
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
|
|
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
Last edited by CraigS; 15-12-2011 at 02:11 PM.
Reason: Added parentheses
|

15-12-2011, 02:10 PM
|
 |
No More Infinities
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
|
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.
|

15-12-2011, 02:17 PM
|
 |
Unpredictable
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
|
|
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
|

15-12-2011, 02:33 PM
|
 |
No More Infinities
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Townsville
Posts: 9,698
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
|
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.
|

15-12-2011, 06:00 PM
|
 |
Unpredictable
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,023
|
|
Once again, I am perplexed by this accusation ..
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
Since you have deigned to "attack" those that hold the position that they do,
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
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.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
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.
|
What exactly is 'high moral ground", and where did this judgement come from ?
|

15-12-2011, 06:48 PM
|
 |
Gravity does not Suck
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Tabulam
Posts: 17,003
|
|
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  
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +10. The time is now 01:54 AM.
|
|