ET Speculation

[Robh (Rob)]

Originally Posted by 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

Hi Alex,

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

Regards, Rob

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 (Carl)]

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 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.

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... I have faith it will work 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 (Carl)]

Aaarrgghhh....mathematicians, no imagination!!!

[renormalised (Carl)]

Very long vid'...worth watching though.

They should release it on DVD.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Aaarrgghhh....mathematicians, no imagination!!!

They make up for it by being insane.

Regards

Steven

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

They make up for it by being insane.

Regards

Steven

That's what happens to most of the brilliant one

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 (Rob)]

Originally Posted by 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 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.

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 (Carl)]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by Robh

As Amir pointed out, a developed theory or model may not turn out to match reality.

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 (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

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

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.

Originally Posted by CraigS

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

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

Originally Posted by CraigS

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.

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).

Originally Posted by CraigS

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.

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".

Originally Posted by CraigS

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!

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

Originally Posted by CraigS

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.

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.

Originally Posted by CraigS

There is also plenty of scope for a balance.

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

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

Originally Posted by CraigS

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

Agreed.

[Robh (Rob)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

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.

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;

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Robh

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Robh

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.
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