Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sriram on July 19, 2015, 02:31:33 PM
-
Hi everyone,
The pictures of Pluto are amazing and all praise to the scientists and engineers who made it possible. Ok....but this raises the question....what is its usefulness? We live in an age of information ..... more and more information without really having any better understanding of the universe and our lives.
I know the usual argument is about crossing frontiers.....'people said the same thing about Columbus and his journey....look how useful it was'.....and so on
Actually, the comparison is not very meaningful considering the nature of the cosmos and natural human limitations. The original motivation for space exploration was about doing better than the Soviet Union and a little later it was about finding other places to colonize if the earth becomes uninhabitable. Now we know that we cannot possibly colonize any other planet in the solar system let alone other exoplanets. We now realize (I hope) that we are rooted to the earth and better look after it well if we want to continue to exist. Moving to other planets and exoplanets is out of the question.
One point is that all information is not necessarily knowledge. By knowledge I mean something that helps us grow intellectually and is also useful to us in our lives. Knowledge should be about forming a big picture view of life in general by adding relevant information wherever necessary.....and our lives should figure in it in some way....IMO. Random information can be more of a clutter.
Secondly, people can get addicted to information. Some people can actually start believing that all information is knowledge and derive pleasure from acquiring such information. Intellectual need is also just a need like hunger, sleep or sex. It is possible to get addicted to the pleasurable sensation we experience when we satisfy these needs. The same thing can happen to the intellectual need also. Many people could begin to think that information is an end in itself...at any cost. This is questionable.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
The pictures of Pluto are amazing and all praise to the scientists and engineers who made it possible. Ok....but this raises the question....what is its usefulness?
It depends on whether you consider understanding the Universe to be useful or not.
without really having any better understanding of the universe.
Rubbish, our understanding of the Universe improves with every scientific advance.
Secondly, people can get addicted to information.
It's better to be addicted to information than disinformation like religionists.
-
Yes, there's more than a subtle difference isn't there. We are fed information that is like 'wallpaper' turning our minds into mush. The media is the main culprit. The internet and mobile 'phones are very addictive.
We naturally crave knowledge, but it's learning to discern and decode to find true knowledge.
-
Italics alert. What counts as true knowledge?
-
Very true SweetPea.
-
Italics alert. What counts as true knowledge?
What Sweetpea believes to be true.
-
Thought it might be.
-
Italics alert. What counts as true knowledge?
What Sweetpea believes to be true.
No, knowledge that anyone can find to be true.
-
Italics alert. What counts as true knowledge?
What Sweetpea believes to be true.
No, knowledge that anyone can find to be true.
How do you personally "discern and decode" true knowledge?
-
No, knowledge that anyone can find to be true.
By what process?
-
No, knowledge that anyone can find to be true.
By what process?
Perhaps the same process by which you divine your certainty about the odds of there being life on other planets...
-
Who has claimed certainty about life on planets other than Earth?
-
Who has claimed certainty about life on planets other than Earth?
Leonard has claimed certainty about the odds. He says he is certain that the odds are not in the millions.
-
He's right.
-
He's right.
He's wrong. Read, "Do you believe in Hell," M107.
-
He's right.
Go on then. What are the odds of there being life on another planet? (And I know you're not going to use that 60s guy who loaded his equation with guesses...)
-
Do you have some sort of problem with the aged?
But that's not the real issue. As per #12 you said that Len has claimed that the odds (of life elsewhere in the cosmos) are not in the millions. Correct; they're not.
Nowhere have I seen Len claim certainty. Len is a sceptic, as am I; by definition we don't do that sort of thing.
-
Go on then. What are the odds of there being life on another planet?
What? on one particlular planet? One of the hundreds of billions in this galaxy (except this one), one of the hundreds of billions in any one of the hundreds of billions of galaxies in the visible Universe or one of the potentially infinite number in the entire Universe?
-
Go on then. What are the odds of there being life on another planet?
What? on one particlular planet? One of the hundreds of billions in this galaxy (except this one), one of the hundreds of billions in any one of the hundreds of billions of galaxies in the visible Universe or one of the potentially infinite number in the entire Universe?
Any planet at all other than on Earth
-
Go on then. What are the odds of there being life on another planet?
What? on one particlular planet? One of the hundreds of billions in this galaxy (except this one), one of the hundreds of billions in any one of the hundreds of billions of galaxies in the visible Universe or one of the potentially infinite number in the entire Universe?
Any planet at all other than on Earth
I'd say the odds that there is life elsewhere in the Universe approach 100%
-
Go on then. What are the odds of there being life on another planet?
What? on one particlular planet? One of the hundreds of billions in this galaxy (except this one), one of the hundreds of billions in any one of the hundreds of billions of galaxies in the visible Universe or one of the potentially infinite number in the entire Universe?
Any planet at all other than on Earth
I'd say the odds that there is life elsewhere in the Universe approach 100%
You would say it? Or you do say it? If you do say it, what data are you using to calculate these odds? What does "approach" mean in this context?
-
Yes, there's more than a subtle difference isn't there. We are fed information that is like 'wallpaper' turning our minds into mush. The media is the main culprit. The internet and mobile 'phones are very addictive.
We naturally crave knowledge, but it's learning to discern and decode to find true knowledge.
Yes. Knowledge is not just information but also includes how the information is processed. It includes our mental programming and how we analyse the information.
Even with little information... if the processing is sophisticated...great knowledge can be gained. Even with lots of information...if the processing is rudimentary...little knowledge can be gained.
-
You would say it? Or you do say it? If you do say it, what data are you using to calculate these odds?
Infinite number of planets x small but non zero probability.
What does "approach" mean in this context?
Comes close to.
-
Go on then. What are the odds of there being life on another planet?
What? on one particlular planet? One of the hundreds of billions in this galaxy (except this one), one of the hundreds of billions in any one of the hundreds of billions of galaxies in the visible Universe or one of the potentially infinite number in the entire Universe?
Any planet at all other than on Earth
I'd say the odds that there is life elsewhere in the Universe approach 100%
Given the size of the universe, that must be true. Suitable conditions for life must exist in billions of locations, so it seems a good bet that life must have started in at least some of them.
-
You would say it? Or you do say it? If you do say it, what data are you using to calculate these odds?
Infinite number of planets x small but non zero probability.
What makes you think there's an infinite number of planets? If you build in arbitrary premises like this then you will get the conclusion you are looking for. OF course if you start with the unevidenced claim that there are an infinite number of planets, you can then use that to back up any claim, like "squirrels play tennis".
Comes close to.
How close? What are the odds?
-
Go on then. What are the odds of there being life on another planet?
What? on one particlular planet? One of the hundreds of billions in this galaxy (except this one), one of the hundreds of billions in any one of the hundreds of billions of galaxies in the visible Universe or one of the potentially infinite number in the entire Universe?
Any planet at all other than on Earth
I'd say the odds that there is life elsewhere in the Universe approach 100%
Given the size of the universe, that must be true. Suitable conditions for life must exist in billions of locations, so it seems a good bet that life must have started in at least some of them.
-
Go on then. What are the odds of there being life on another planet?
What? on one particlular planet? One of the hundreds of billions in this galaxy (except this one), one of the hundreds of billions in any one of the hundreds of billions of galaxies in the visible Universe or one of the potentially infinite number in the entire Universe?
Any planet at all other than on Earth
I'd say the odds that there is life elsewhere in the Universe approach 100%
Given the size of the universe, that must be true. Suitable conditions for life must exist in billions of locations, so it seems a good bet that life must have started in at least some of them.
How good a bet? What are the odds?
-
Yes, there's more than a subtle difference isn't there. We are fed information that is like 'wallpaper' turning our minds into mush. The media is the main culprit. The internet and mobile 'phones are very addictive.
We naturally crave knowledge, but it's learning to discern and decode to find true knowledge.
Yes. Knowledge is not just information but also includes how the information is processed. It includes our mental programming and how we analyse the information.
Even with little information... if the processing is sophisticated...great knowledge can be gained. Even with lots of information...if the processing is rudimentary...little knowledge can be gained.
You are getting there.
Information is generic and available. Knowledge is the consequence of experience and understanding.
A bus timetable is information. That the 8.25 is always five minutes late is knowledge.
-
Let's put it in the simplest terms.
There are are a very large number of planets in the universe, all of them with varying physical attributes, but all composed of an assortment of elements and compounds whose properties are known to us.
The conditions necessary for life as we know it to develop are not that great in number, and it follows that there may even be other life forms that need less.
Given the above, it is highly probable that some life form exists, has existed, or will exist somewhere else in the universe.
-
Given the size of the universe, that must be true. Suitable conditions for life must exist in billions of locations, so it seems a good bet that life must have started in at least some of them.
'Must' exist? As I understand it the habitable orbit of the earth around our sun is limited to a pretty small range. Whatever the nature of any other life there might be out there, the chances of a mass of material coalescig together in the equivalent range in another planetary system is pretty small - after all, it was pretty small in ours.
-
Given the size of the universe, that must be true. Suitable conditions for life must exist in billions of locations, so it seems a good bet that life must have started in at least some of them.
'Must' exist? As I understand it the habitable orbit of the earth around our sun is limited to a pretty small range. Whatever the nature of any other life there might be out there, the chances of a mass of material coalescig together in the equivalent range in another planetary system is pretty small - after all, it was pretty small in ours.
Why was it small in ours?
Venus could be a contender apart from the runaway greenhouse effect that could also kill us.
Also, we do not know what the parameters for life are.
Perhaps there are lifeforms in Jupiters upper gas layers, who knows.
To rule it out you would have to know where life can exist and under what conditions.
We don't know.
-
'Must' exist? As I understand it the habitable orbit of the earth around our sun is limited to a pretty small range. Whatever the nature of any other life there might be out there, the chances of a mass of material coalescig together in the equivalent range in another planetary system is pretty small - after all, it was pretty small in ours.
https://goo.gl/UC8BbO
http://goo.gl/gBQ5iK
-
Let's put it in the simplest terms.
There are are a very large number of planets in the universe, all of them with varying physical attributes, but all composed of an assortment of elements and compounds whose properties are known to us.
The conditions necessary for life as we know it to develop are not that great in number, and it follows that there may even be other life forms that need less.
Given the above, it is highly probable that some life form exists, has existed, or will exist somewhere else in the universe.
No, there's no need to put it in the simplest terms. Nice way to dodge answering though.
"Highly probable"...how probable? What are the odds?
-
Let's put it in the simplest terms.
There are are a very large number of planets in the universe, all of them with varying physical attributes, but all composed of an assortment of elements and compounds whose properties are known to us.
The conditions necessary for life as we know it to develop are not that great in number, and it follows that there may even be other life forms that need less.
Given the above, it is highly probable that some life form exists, has existed, or will exist somewhere else in the universe.
No, there's no need to put it in the simplest terms. Nice way to dodge answering though.
"Highly probable"...how probable? What are the odds?
I don't know, but I doubt that NASA would have spent 600 million dollars on an idea that was not highly probable.
-
What makes you think there's an infinite number of planets?
The fact that it looks like the Universe is infinite.
Comes close to.
How close? What are the odds?
It's a mathematical thing, it means "is very nearly but not quite".
If there are n planets and the probability that a planet has life on it is p, then the probability that no planet has life on it is (1 - p)n and therefore the probability that at least one planet has life on is 1 - (1 - p)n
In mathematics, we say "as n approaches infinity, 1 - (1 - p)n approaches 1"
It is in that sense I use the word "approaches".
-
What makes you think there's an infinite number of planets?
The fact that it looks like the Universe is infinite.
erm.. no it doesn't. I take it you don't believe in the Big Bang, then?
-
What makes you think there's an infinite number of planets?
The fact that it looks like the Universe is infinite.
erm.. no it doesn't. I take it you don't believe in the Big Bang, then?
Don't be misled into thinking that the Big Bang is like a point exploding. The Universe appears to be accelerating, therefore it is not a closed curve (according to GR).
-
The Universe appears to be accelerating, therefore it is not a closed curve (according to GR).
Do you mean the rate of expansion seems to be accelerating?
-
The Universe appears to be accelerating, therefore it is not a closed curve (according to GR).
Do you mean the rate of expansion seems to be accelerating?
Yes.
-
The Universe appears to be accelerating, therefore it is not a closed curve (according to GR).
Do you mean the rate of expansion seems to be accelerating?
Yes.
Surely it can't be both infinite and expanding, can it?
-
The Universe appears to be accelerating, therefore it is not a closed curve (according to GR).
Do you mean the rate of expansion seems to be accelerating?
Yes.
Surely it can't be both infinite and expanding, can it?
Why not?
-
The Universe appears to be accelerating, therefore it is not a closed curve (according to GR).
Do you mean the rate of expansion seems to be accelerating?
Yes.
Surely it can't be both infinite and expanding, can it?
Why not?
You can't say "it is infinite now, but in a minute it will be a measurable amount bigger" - it would be nonsense
-
You can't say "it is infinite now, but in a minute it will be a measurable amount bigger" - it would be nonsense
Actually, it's more a case of everything being further apart.
Imagine an infinite number line with all the whole numbers marked on it at 1cm intervals. Then stretch the line uniformly so that all the numbers are 2cm apart. To an ant - say - standing on one of the numbers, it looks like everything has moved further away, but in reality, the line has expanded. This is analogous to space time expanding.
-
You can't say "it is infinite now, but in a minute it will be a measurable amount bigger" - it would be nonsense
Actually, it's more a case of everything being further apart.
Imagine an infinite number line with all the whole numbers marked on it at 1cm intervals. Then stretch the line uniformly so that all the numbers are 2cm apart. To an ant - say - standing on one of the numbers, it looks like everything has moved further away, but in reality, the line has expanded. This is analogous to space time expanding.
yes I know - but if the line has expanded then it can't be infinite, can it? the conundrum still remains - you can't say the line is infinitely long.. and now it is a bit longer.
-
yes I know - but if the line has expanded then it can't be infinite, can it?
Why not?
the conundrum still remains - you can't say the line is infinitely long.. and now it is a bit longer.
You need to do some Cantorian set theory.
-
the conundrum still remains - you can't say the line is infinitely long.. and now it is a bit longer.
You need to do some Cantorian set theory.
So you don't have an answer then.
-
Let's put it in the simplest terms.
There are are a very large number of planets in the universe, all of them with varying physical attributes, but all composed of an assortment of elements and compounds whose properties are known to us.
The conditions necessary for life as we know it to develop are not that great in number, and it follows that there may even be other life forms that need less.
Given the above, it is highly probable that some life form exists, has existed, or will exist somewhere else in the universe.
No, there's no need to put it in the simplest terms. Nice way to dodge answering though.
"Highly probable"...how probable? What are the odds?
I don't know, but I doubt that NASA would have spent 600 million dollars on an idea that was not highly probable.
Help is at hand ....... http://www.euronews.com/2015/07/20/why-haven-t-we-found-alien-life-yet/
-
The Universe appears to be accelerating, therefore it is not a closed curve (according to GR).
Do you mean the rate of expansion seems to be accelerating?
Yes.
Surely it can't be both infinite and expanding, can it?
Apparently it can as I saw on Horizon last night.
Seems counter intuitive, but then again, what do I know.
-
Help is at hand ....... http://www.euronews.com/2015/07/20/why-haven-t-we-found-alien-life-yet/
Tried and got this message. Will try again later.
"The page you requested cannot be found; it might have been removed, had its name CHANGED, or is temporarily unavailable."
-
the conundrum still remains - you can't say the line is infinitely long.. and now it is a bit longer.
You need to do some Cantorian set theory.
So you don't have an answer then.
The number line can be stretched without taking up any more than the room it does take up because it is infinite. If you take every number on the number line and multiply it by two you end up with the exact same set of numbers. You have stretched it, but it is still the same size.
This is why I suggested you read some Cantorial set theory because that is what it is about.
-
If the universe is infinite, why is the night sky dark? given infinite space, every line of sight would end with a star - why would there be so much black?
-
The further away something is, the faster it is moving away. If a galaxy is so far away that the rate of expansion exceeds the speed of light, then the light from it will never reach us.
I'm open to correction on that.
-
The further away something is, the faster it is moving away. If a galaxy is so far away that the rate of expansion exceeds the speed of light, then the light from it will never reach us.
I'm open to correction on that.
But hasn't it been travelling towards us for an infinite amount of time?
Does observation support the conjecture that the universe is expanding at faster than the speed of light?
-
Seems I was wrong. Good vid here that explains it better than I can.
http://youtu.be/XBr4GkRnY04
-
If the universe is infinite, why is the night sky dark? given infinite space, every line of sight would end with a star - why would there be so much black?
That's Olbers' paradox. It doesn't apply in this Universe because time doesn't go back to infinity.
-
If the universe is infinite, why is the night sky dark? given infinite space, every line of sight would end with a star - why would there be so much black?
That's Olbers' paradox. It doesn't apply in this Universe because time doesn't go back to infinity.
So you believe that the universe is infinite in space but has existed for a finite amount of time. Was it infinite in size from the instant it came into being?
-
I also understood that some galaxies are moving away from us faster than the speed of light so they are lost to us forever
-
So you believe that the universe is infinite in space but has existed for a finite amount of time. Was it infinite in size from the instant it came into being?
I don't think anybody knows the answer to that question. The BBC poster Speaker to Animals once explained current thinking (as of 10 years ago) to me (she was a physicist) but I can't pretend I understood it.
Certainly, all the stars in the Universe began shinning a finite time ago which is why the sky still looks dark.
-
So you believe that the universe is infinite in space but has existed for a finite amount of time. Was it infinite in size from the instant it came into being?
I don't think anybody knows the answer to that question.
But you believe it anyway. Believing in things which no-one really knows about, Jeremy? Join the club! We have a buffet on Wednesdays.
-
So you believe that the universe is infinite in space but has existed for a finite amount of time. Was it infinite in size from the instant it came into being?
I don't think anybody knows the answer to that question.
But you believe it anyway. Believing in things which no-one really knows about, Jeremy? Join the club! We have a buffet on Wednesdays.
From what we observe of the Universe, it looks like it is infinite in extent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space#Topology_of_expanding_space
-
So you believe that the universe is infinite in space but has existed for a finite amount of time. Was it infinite in size from the instant it came into being?
I don't think anybody knows the answer to that question.
But you believe it anyway. Believing in things which no-one really knows about, Jeremy? Join the club! We have a buffet on Wednesdays.
From what we observe of the Universe, it looks like it is infinite in extent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space#Topology_of_expanding_space
No, it looks finite - but you've got an untested faster-than-light-travel hypothesis to explain why an infinite universe might look finite.
-
No, it looks finite - but you've got an untested faster-than-light-travel hypothesis to explain why an infinite universe might look finite.
What observations make you think the Universe is finite?
The observations that make me think the Universe is probably infinite are that space-time is approximately flat as deduced by observations about its expansion. That doesn't men the Universe is infinite - it might bend back on itself like a torus, but if it does that, it is considerably larger than what we can observe.
-
No, it looks finite - but you've got an untested faster-than-light-travel hypothesis to explain why an infinite universe might look finite.
What observations make you think the Universe is finite?
The observations that make me think the Universe is probably infinite are that space-time is approximately flat as deduced by observations about its expansion. That doesn't men the Universe is infinite - it might bend back on itself like a torus, but if it does that, it is considerably larger than what we can observe.
The observation that the sky is dark. Which you cannot rebut with any counter-observations, but only with an unevidenced guess about things being able to travel faster than light.
And, as you say, the observations you do have are perfectly consistent with "very big" rather than infinite, and very big is consistent with other observations and with your own observation that the universe is finite in time.
-
The observation that the sky is dark.
We've already talked about that and I've already refuted it.
Which you cannot rebut with any counter-observations, but only with an unevidenced guess about things being able to travel faster than light.
I have rebutted it. The Universe is not infinite in the time dimension. It began a finite time ago, but that doesn't mean it is not infinite in the space direction.
Now do you have any observations that haven't alrewady been rebutted.
While you're doing so, have a read of this
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/People/Is_the_Universe_finite_or_infinite_An_interview_with_Joseph_Silk
and perhaps ask yourself why a top scientist doesn't agree with you that "the sky is dark" means the Universe is finite.
-
The observation that the sky is dark.
We've already talked about that and I've already refuted it.
Which you cannot rebut with any counter-observations, but only with an unevidenced guess about things being able to travel faster than light.
I have rebutted it. The Universe is not infinite in the time dimension. It began a finite time ago, but that doesn't mean it is not infinite in the space direction.
Now do you have any observations that haven't alrewady been rebutted.
While you're doing so, have a read of this
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/People/Is_the_Universe_finite_or_infinite_An_interview_with_Joseph_Silk
and perhaps ask yourself why a top scientist doesn't agree with you that "the sky is dark" means the Universe is finite.
I have asked you before - and you have failed to answer - about your idea of an infinite universe existing for a finite period of time. Was it infinitely big from the moment it began? Is that notion consistent with observations of the Big Bang? If it wasn't, how can a finite universe suddenly become infinite, and when do you imagine this happened?
And, really? Are we going with "a 'top' scientist agrees with me so I must be right"...?
-
The observation that the sky is dark. Which you cannot rebut with any counter-observations, but only with an unevidenced guess about things being able to travel faster than light.
Light speed is the limitation to things with mass that exist in space-time. That doesn't account for space-time itself. If you accept that the BB model along with inflation is currently the best explanation we have, then by that definition, you also have to accept that space-time expands "faster" than light speed.
-
The observation that the sky is dark. Which you cannot rebut with any counter-observations, but only with an unevidenced guess about things being able to travel faster than light.
Light speed is the limitation to things with mass that exist in space-time. That doesn't account for space-time itself. If you accept that the BB model along with inflation is currently the best explanation we have, then by that definition, you also have to accept that space-time expands "faster" than light speed.
The model which was suggested says that objects (such as distant stars) are travelling away from us at faster than the speed of light. That is to say, things with mass that exist in space-time.
-
The observation that the sky is dark. Which you cannot rebut with any counter-observations, but only with an unevidenced guess about things being able to travel faster than light.
Light speed is the limitation to things with mass that exist in space-time. That doesn't account for space-time itself. If you accept that the BB model along with inflation is currently the best explanation we have, then by that definition, you also have to accept that space-time expands "faster" than light speed.
The model which was suggested says that objects (such as distant stars) are travelling away from us at faster than the speed of light. That is to say, things with mass that exist in space-time.
It's not the objects that are moving away, but the space between them that is expanding.
-
The observation that the sky is dark. Which you cannot rebut with any counter-observations, but only with an unevidenced guess about things being able to travel faster than light.
Light speed is the limitation to things with mass that exist in space-time. That doesn't account for space-time itself. If you accept that the BB model along with inflation is currently the best explanation we have, then by that definition, you also have to accept that space-time expands "faster" than light speed.
The model which was suggested says that objects (such as distant stars) are travelling away from us at faster than the speed of light. That is to say, things with mass that exist in space-time.
It's not the objects that are moving away, but the space between them that is expanding.
If an object is x km away from me, and then later is is 2x km away from me, then it has moved away.
-
what is its usefulness?
It gives us information on the nature of Pluto's historical development, its interaction with other objects in the far reaches of the Solar System, this allows us to improve our model of the mechanics of the universe.
We live in an age of information ..... more and more information without really having any better understanding of the universe and our lives.
We live in an age of data, that data can be interpreted into information with the insight, will and time. If you lack the insight or the will, or don't put the time in, it will remain meaningless data.
The original motivation for space exploration was about doing better than the Soviet Union and a little later it was about finding other places to colonize if the earth becomes uninhabitable.
For some people - particularly those agreeing the funding - it was about the race between the Soviet Union and the West. For many - perhaps most - of the people actually involved in the work it was about exploring the frontiers of knowledge, science, technology and human experience.
Now we know that we cannot possibly colonize any other planet in the solar system let alone other exoplanets. We now realize (I hope) that we are rooted to the earth and better look after it well if we want to continue to exist. Moving to other planets and exoplanets is out of the question.
... because reasons? Colonising other bodies in the solar system is far from beyond the question, and although the pressure would have to be extreme to consider the costs of extra-solar colonisation it's not beyond the realms of possibility, though it would be stretching current technology.
One point is that all information is not necessarily knowledge. By knowledge I mean something that helps us grow intellectually and is also useful to us in our lives. Knowledge should be about forming a big picture view of life in general by adding relevant information wherever necessary.....and our lives should figure in it in some way....IMO. Random information can be more of a clutter.
Agreed. I believe information theorist make this the differentiation between data (raw information, if you will) and information (interpreted data that, therefore, has a meaning).
Secondly, people can get addicted to information. Some people can actually start believing that all information is knowledge and derive pleasure from acquiring such information. Intellectual need is also just a need like hunger, sleep or sex. It is possible to get addicted to the pleasurable sensation we experience when we satisfy these needs.
An overstretch of the word 'addiction' - as it is when it's used in realtion to 'sex'. There is no 'addiction' to hunger, there can be a similar habit-forming behaviour with food.
The same thing can happen to the intellectual need also. Many people could begin to think that information is an end in itself...at any cost. This is questionable.
And what's the down-side? Part of the definition of addiction is that the desire is harmful - where is the harm in learning?
O.
-
If an object is x km is away from you but is glued to a travelator, then later on it is 2x km away from you, what has done the moving?
You seem to be stuck on the concept that the rate space-time expands is limited to light speed, like the speed of a travelator is limited to how fast you can run along it, or the rate at which you can inflate a balloon is limited to how fast an ant can walk across the surface.
-
So you believe that the universe is infinite in space but has existed for a finite amount of time. Was it infinite in size from the instant it came into being?
The universe is finite - the dimension in which we measure it came into existence with its creation - but the "space" into which it's expanding may well be infinite; we have no reliable information on that with which to make a determination.
O.
-
Hi Outrider,
Good post! (Mess 69). And may I say, welcome back. :)
-
If an object is x km is away from you but is glued to a travelator, then later on it is 2x km away from you, what has done the moving?
An object with mass in space-time has done the moving
-
If an object is x km is away from you but is glued to a travelator, then later on it is 2x km away from you, what has done the moving?
An object with mass in space-time has done the moving
Movement, in the absence of an inertial frame of reference, is relative. It rather depends on which point in space you consider to be the reference point - you, the travelator or the object could have moved.
This is ignoring the slight expansion of the intervening space that's likely to have happened, according to current inflationary models.
O.
-
An object with mass in space-time has done the moving
Movement, in the absence of an inertial frame of reference, is relative. It rather depends on which point in space you consider to be the reference point - you, the travelator or the object could have moved.
All three of which are objects with mass in space-time
-
An object with mass in space-time has done the moving
Movement, in the absence of an inertial frame of reference, is relative. It rather depends on which point in space you consider to be the reference point - you, the travelator or the object could have moved.
All three of which are objects with mass in space-time
It's an analogy.
-
An object with mass in space-time has done the moving
Movement, in the absence of an inertial frame of reference, is relative. It rather depends on which point in space you consider to be the reference point - you, the travelator or the object could have moved.
All three of which are objects with mass in space-time
It's an analogy.
I know
-
An object with mass in space-time has done the moving
Movement, in the absence of an inertial frame of reference, is relative. It rather depends on which point in space you consider to be the reference point - you, the travelator or the object could have moved.
All three of which are objects with mass in space-time
It's an analogy.
I know
So run with it.
-
An object with mass in space-time has done the moving
Movement, in the absence of an inertial frame of reference, is relative. It rather depends on which point in space you consider to be the reference point - you, the travelator or the object could have moved.
All three of which are objects with mass in space-time
It's an analogy.
I know
So run with it.
What is the analogy meant to achieve?
-
That you and another object can be stationary yet still increase in distance from one another via a third party.
-
That you and another object can be stationary yet still increase in distance from one another via a third party.
So, if space itself is expanding like that, and objects are thereby becoming further apart, how much further from the sun have we got that way during the past 4 billion years?
-
That you and another object can be stationary yet still increase in distance from one another via a third party.
So, if space itself is expanding like that, and objects are thereby becoming further apart, how much further from the sun have we got that way during the past 4 billion years?
Via expansion, we haven't. If anything, I'd say we've gotten closer as the sun increases in size.
Expansion only has a noticeable effect when the distance between objects is so far apart that the gravitational pull from those objects on one another is weaker than the rate of expansion. This is why it's predicted that the Andromeda galaxy will eventually merge with the Milky Way (and perhaps some other smaller galaxy clusters), but anything further away will continue to increase in distance due to expansion.
-
That you and another object can be stationary yet still increase in distance from one another via a third party.
So, if space itself is expanding like that, and objects are thereby becoming further apart, how much further from the sun have we got that way during the past 4 billion years?
Via expansion, we haven't. If anything, I'd say we've gotten closer as the sun increases in size.
Expansion only has a noticeable effect when the distance between objects is so far apart that the gravitational pull from those objects on one another is weaker than the rate of expansion. This is why it's predicted that the Andromeda galaxy will eventually merge with the Milky Way (and perhaps some other smaller galaxy clusters), but anything further away will continue to increase in distance due to expansion.
Anyway, I'm not sure why we are having this discussion - I agree the universe is expanding. I just don't agree with jeremyp when he says that the universe is infinite. We seem to have drifted
-
That you and another object can be stationary yet still increase in distance from one another via a third party.
So, if space itself is expanding like that, and objects are thereby becoming further apart, how much further from the sun have we got that way during the past 4 billion years?
Via expansion, we haven't. If anything, I'd say we've gotten closer as the sun increases in size.
Expansion only has a noticeable effect when the distance between objects is so far apart that the gravitational pull from those objects on one another is weaker than the rate of expansion. This is why it's predicted that the Andromeda galaxy will eventually merge with the Milky Way (and perhaps some other smaller galaxy clusters), but anything further away will continue to increase in distance due to expansion.
Anyway, I'm not sure why we are having this discussion - I agree the universe is expanding. I just don't agree with jeremyp when he says that the universe is infinite. We seem to have drifted
Because you were questioning something going faster than light.
I might be wrong here but my understanding is that the contents of space is finite - ie the objects, but space itself is infinite. If space stopped expanding, then we could perhaps say that space is finite and that there is a limit to the distances between objects.
-
That you and another object can be stationary yet still increase in distance from one another via a third party.
So, if space itself is expanding like that, and objects are thereby becoming further apart, how much further from the sun have we got that way during the past 4 billion years?
Via expansion, we haven't. If anything, I'd say we've gotten closer as the sun increases in size.
Expansion only has a noticeable effect when the distance between objects is so far apart that the gravitational pull from those objects on one another is weaker than the rate of expansion. This is why it's predicted that the Andromeda galaxy will eventually merge with the Milky Way (and perhaps some other smaller galaxy clusters), but anything further away will continue to increase in distance due to expansion.
Anyway, I'm not sure why we are having this discussion - I agree the universe is expanding. I just don't agree with jeremyp when he says that the universe is infinite. We seem to have drifted
Because you were questioning something going faster than light.
I might be wrong here but my understanding is that the contents of space is finite - ie the objects, but space itself is infinite. If space stopped expanding, then we could perhaps say that space is finite and that there is a limit to the distances between objects.
This differs from jeremyp, who believes that the contents are infinite. This is the basis of his belief that there is life on other planets.
-
Hi everyone,
The pictures of Pluto are amazing and all praise to the scientists and engineers who made it possible. Ok....but this raises the question....what is its usefulness? We live in an age of information ..... more and more information without really having any better understanding of the universe and our lives.
I know the usual argument is about crossing frontiers.....'people said the same thing about Columbus and his journey....look how useful it was'.....and so on
Actually, the comparison is not very meaningful considering the nature of the cosmos and natural human limitations. The original motivation for space exploration was about doing better than the Soviet Union and a little later it was about finding other places to colonize if the earth becomes uninhabitable. Now we know that we cannot possibly colonize any other planet in the solar system let alone other exoplanets. We now realize (I hope) that we are rooted to the earth and better look after it well if we want to continue to exist. Moving to other planets and exoplanets is out of the question.
One point is that all information is not necessarily knowledge. By knowledge I mean something that helps us grow intellectually and is also useful to us in our lives. Knowledge should be about forming a big picture view of life in general by adding relevant information wherever necessary.....and our lives should figure in it in some way....IMO. Random information can be more of a clutter.
Secondly, people can get addicted to information. Some people can actually start believing that all information is knowledge and derive pleasure from acquiring such information. Intellectual need is also just a need like hunger, sleep or sex. It is possible to get addicted to the pleasurable sensation we experience when we satisfy these needs. The same thing can happen to the intellectual need also. Many people could begin to think that information is an end in itself...at any cost. This is questionable.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers.
Sriram
What I think you are referring to is meaning and significance for a persons life. Science for the most part just gives us facts and useful 'toys' to make our lives easier but it doesn't provide us with meaning and guide for our lives.
-
What I think you are referring to is meaning and significance for a persons life. Science for the most part just gives us facts and useful 'toys' to make our lives easier but it doesn't provide us with meaning and guide for our lives.
As the most intelligent form of life on the planet, it is up to us to find meaning and significance in our lives. I doubt that any other form of life is even capable of doing so, let alone interested in it.
Whether life has either significance or purpose I strongly doubt, but we are certainly capable of giving it both if we are interested.
I'm sure that the majority of people simply get on with living, and don't worry very much about either their purpose or significance.
In short, as long as we behave helpfully to others and the environment, and not detrimentally, we won't go far wrong.
-
I have asked you before - and you have failed to answer - about your idea of an infinite universe existing for a finite period of time.
It's not my idea. Why do you think it's a problem if top scientists don't?
And, really? Are we going with "a 'top' scientist agrees with me so I must be right"...?
I would suggest that the technicalities of this are beyond you, they are certainly beyond me, so we have to rely to an extent on the experts.
-
If an object is x km is away from you but is glued to a travelator, then later on it is 2x km away from you, what has done the moving?
An object with mass in space-time has done the moving
I've posted this before and it shows that you are quite wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
-
That you and another object can be stationary yet still increase in distance from one another via a third party.
So, if space itself is expanding like that, and objects are thereby becoming further apart, how much further from the sun have we got that way during the past 4 billion years?
The expansion of space happens on very large scales, the gravity of the Sun, in fact of the whole local group of galaxies overcomes that on the local scale. It's all there in the link I posted which you should read because you are clearly out of your depth here.
-
I might be wrong here but my understanding is that the contents of space is finite
It might be but only if space bends back on itself like a torus. It is space itself that is expanding after the Big Bang, not the things in it. If the Universe is infinite, then there is an infinite amount of matter in it.
-
What I think you are referring to is meaning and significance for a persons life. Science for the most part just gives us facts and useful 'toys' to make our lives easier but it doesn't provide us with meaning and guide for our lives.
As the most intelligent form of life on the planet, it is up to us to find meaning and significance in our lives.
Careful Len.
If, according to you, we cannot find morality in the universe, how are we going to find meaning?
I think you mean it is up to us to Invent meaning....and if as you seem to suggest we invent our morals and meaning........how is that more virtuous than inventing something greater or more creative or more benevolent or more loving than ourselves?
I for one have discovered meaning. You have had to invent yours.
-
Careful Len.
If, according to you, we cannot find morality in the universe, how are we going to find meaning?
You won't find meaning. It is up to each one of us to give his life some meaning if he needs, but as I have already said, most people don't bother with such thoughts, they just get on with life.
I think you mean it is up to us to Invent meaning....and if as you seem to suggest we invent our morals and meaning........how is that more virtuous than inventing something greater or more creative or more benevolent or more loving than ourselves?
Because giving your life meaning yourself makes much more sense than inventing something else to do the job.
I for one have discovered meaning. You have had to invent yours.
Well, in fairness, you haven't discovered anything ... you have just swallowed a story invented by an ancient people thousands of years ago. What exactly do you mean by "meaning"?
-
I might be wrong here but my understanding is that the contents of space is finite
It might be but only if space bends back on itself like a torus. It is space itself that is expanding after the Big Bang, not the things in it. If the Universe is infinite, then there is an infinite amount of matter in it.
I think we might be talking about different models.
Again, I could have it all to cock, but I understand one model to be that the matter in our universe is finite but space is infinite. The BB, from which our universe originated, created the matter in infinite space, space that was already expanding due to dark energy prior to the BB. With space being infinite, then it stands to reason that an infinite amount of BBs have and will occur, meaning there's an infinite amount of universes bubbling out of that space. In that regard, there is an infinite amount of matter, but spread across all the universes.
-
What I think you are referring to is meaning and significance for a persons life. Science for the most part just gives us facts and useful 'toys' to make our lives easier but it doesn't provide us with meaning and guide for our lives.
As the most intelligent form of life on the planet, it is up to us to find meaning and significance in our lives. I doubt that any other form of life is even capable of doing so, let alone interested in it.
Whether life has either significance or purpose I strongly doubt, but we are certainly capable of giving it both if we are interested.
I'm sure that the majority of people simply get on with living, and don't worry very much about either their purpose or significance.
In short, as long as we behave helpfully to others and the environment, and not detrimentally, we won't go far wrong.
Even if other animals were concerned with the meaning of their existence how would they express and deal with it? Getting depressed perhaps? It seems to me that the higher conscious animals tend to be drawn towards us as if they recognise something of value about us.....?
-
I might be wrong here but my understanding is that the contents of space is finite
It might be but only if space bends back on itself like a torus. It is space itself that is expanding after the Big Bang, not the things in it. If the Universe is infinite, then there is an infinite amount of matter in it.
I think we might be talking about different models.
Again, I could have it all to cock, but I understand one model to be that the matter in our universe is finite but space is infinite. The BB, from which our universe originated, created the matter in infinite space, space that was already expanding due to dark energy prior to the BB. With space being infinite, then it stands to reason that an infinite amount of BBs have and will occur, meaning there's an infinite amount of universes bubbling out of that space. In that regard, there is an infinite amount of matter, but spread across all the universes.
Sorry, Andy, but jeremyp says that "top scientists" say that you're wrong, so that settles it. Top, mind you, not just any old scientists.
-
I might be wrong here but my understanding is that the contents of space is finite
It might be but only if space bends back on itself like a torus. It is space itself that is expanding after the Big Bang, not the things in it. If the Universe is infinite, then there is an infinite amount of matter in it.
I think we might be talking about different models.
Again, I could have it all to cock, but I understand one model to be that the matter in our universe is finite but space is infinite. The BB, from which our universe originated, created the matter in infinite space, space that was already expanding due to dark energy prior to the BB. With space being infinite, then it stands to reason that an infinite amount of BBs have and will occur, meaning there's an infinite amount of universes bubbling out of that space. In that regard, there is an infinite amount of matter, but spread across all the universes.
Sorry, Andy, but jeremyp says that "top scientists" say that you're wrong, so that settles it. Top, mind you, not just any old scientists.
Different scientists in the field come up with different hypothetical models that fit the data we currently have. No-one can be said to be right or wrong as it stands. I'm confident jeremy is aware of that.
-
I might be wrong here but my understanding is that the contents of space is finite
It might be but only if space bends back on itself like a torus. It is space itself that is expanding after the Big Bang, not the things in it. If the Universe is infinite, then there is an infinite amount of matter in it.
I think we might be talking about different models.
Again, I could have it all to cock, but I understand one model to be that the matter in our universe is finite but space is infinite. The BB, from which our universe originated, created the matter in infinite space, space that was already expanding due to dark energy prior to the BB. With space being infinite, then it stands to reason that an infinite amount of BBs have and will occur, meaning there's an infinite amount of universes bubbling out of that space. In that regard, there is an infinite amount of matter, but spread across all the universes.
Sorry, Andy, but jeremyp says that "top scientists" say that you're wrong, so that settles it. Top, mind you, not just any old scientists.
Different scientists in the field come up with different hypothetical models that fit the data we currently have. No-one can be said to be right or wrong as it stands. I'm confident jeremy is aware of that.
No, he thinks the "top scientists" can be said to be right. Because they're "top", dontcha know.
-
In the context of different models fitting the same data, there is no right or wrong. Further information is required to kick one model out of the water and show it wrong.
Jeremy was saying, that based on what the experts in the field say, you were wrong about the specifics of certain models (regarding expansion exceeding light speed), so not in the same context of saying one model is wrong.
I wouldn't put it as harshly as saying you were wrong, only that you didn't understand, but I think (or hope) that has changed now.
-
In the context of different models fitting the same data, there is no right or wrong. Further information is required to kick one model out of the water and show it wrong.
Jeremy was saying, that based on what the experts in the field say, you were wrong about the specifics of certain models (regarding expansion exceeding light speed), so not in the same context of saying one model is wrong.
I wouldn't put it as harshly as saying you were wrong, only that you didn't understand, but I think (or hope) that has changed now.
Jeremy believes there is infinite matter. I believe that this is more than we know. He believes that he is right and I am wrong (and you too). He believes this because he believes that "top scientists" say he is right. Simple as that.
-
Current observations suggest the Universe is flat on the large scale. If matter wasn't distributed evenly throughout it, it wouldn't be flat.
The Universe could be flat and still finite, for example an infinitely long cylinder is flat and finite in one direction. A torus is flat and finite in both directions.
The Universe could be like a torus but if it were, if you look in one direction you might expect to see stuff you can also see looking in another direction. We can't, so if the Universe is finite, it is larger than what we can see.
-
Jeremy believes there is infinite matter.
Nope. I'm saying there could be. I think I've already stated that we don't know if the Universe is infinite or not.
-
Current observations suggest the Universe is flat on the large scale. If matter wasn't distributed evenly throughout it, it wouldn't be flat.
The Universe could be flat and still finite, for example an infinitely long cylinder is flat and finite in one direction. A torus is flat and finite in both directions.
The Universe could be like a torus but if it were, if you look in one direction you might expect to see stuff you can also see looking in another direction. We can't, so if the Universe is finite, it is larger than what we can see.
Of course it's larger than what we can see. that's not in dispute. I am glad that you have changed your position on there being an infinite number of worlds. Given that the number of worlds could be finite, we are back where we began - it is impossible for us to know the odds of there being life on another world.
-
Jeremy believes there is infinite matter.
Nope. I'm saying there could be. I think I've already stated that we don't know if the Universe is infinite or not.
So if we don't know that, what is the basis for your belief that we know enough to know the odds of there being life elsewhere in the universe?
-
Current observations suggest the Universe is flat on the large scale. If matter wasn't distributed evenly throughout it, it wouldn't be flat.
The Universe could be flat and still finite, for example an infinitely long cylinder is flat and finite in one direction. A torus is flat and finite in both directions.
The Universe could be like a torus but if it were, if you look in one direction you might expect to see stuff you can also see looking in another direction. We can't, so if the Universe is finite, it is larger than what we can see.
Of course it's larger than what we can see. that's not in dispute. I am glad that you have changed your position on there being an infinite number of worlds. Given that the number of worlds could be finite, we are back where we began - it is impossible for us to know the odds of there being life on another world.
Looking back through the thread, it never was his position. He said it was potentially infinite, which is correct.
-
Current observations suggest the Universe is flat on the large scale. If matter wasn't distributed evenly throughout it, it wouldn't be flat.
The Universe could be flat and still finite, for example an infinitely long cylinder is flat and finite in one direction. A torus is flat and finite in both directions.
The Universe could be like a torus but if it were, if you look in one direction you might expect to see stuff you can also see looking in another direction. We can't, so if the Universe is finite, it is larger than what we can see.
Of course it's larger than what we can see. that's not in dispute. I am glad that you have changed your position on there being an infinite number of worlds. Given that the number of worlds could be finite, we are back where we began - it is impossible for us to know the odds of there being life on another world.
Looking back through the thread, it never was his position. He said it was potentially infinite, which is correct.
But the premise that there are infinite worlds is the basis of his belief that we can know the odds of there being life elsewhere, and,further, his belief that such life does in fact exist. If we do not know that there are infinite planets, from where does he derive this "knowledge"?
-
Of course it's larger than what we can see. that's not in dispute. I am glad that you have changed your position on there being an infinite number of worlds.
Are you totally incapable of reading comprehension? I haven't changed my position, you are just pretending I have.
Given that the number of worlds could be finite,
Or infinite.
we are back where we began - it is impossible for us to know the odds of there being life on another world.
You don't need to know the precise probability.
Do you even remember how we got on to this subject, by the way?
-
Current observations suggest the Universe is flat on the large scale. If matter wasn't distributed evenly throughout it, it wouldn't be flat.
The Universe could be flat and still finite, for example an infinitely long cylinder is flat and finite in one direction. A torus is flat and finite in both directions.
The Universe could be like a torus but if it were, if you look in one direction you might expect to see stuff you can also see looking in another direction. We can't, so if the Universe is finite, it is larger than what we can see.
Of course it's larger than what we can see. that's not in dispute. I am glad that you have changed your position on there being an infinite number of worlds. Given that the number of worlds could be finite, we are back where we began - it is impossible for us to know the odds of there being life on another world.
Looking back through the thread, it never was his position. He said it was potentially infinite, which is correct.
But the premise that there are infinite worlds is the basis of his belief that we can know the odds of there being life elsewhere, and,further, his belief that such life does in fact exist. If we do not know that there are infinite planets, from where does he derive this "knowledge"?
Again, reading back through the thread, it's not easy to decipher whether jeremy was basing this knowledge solely on the hypothetical of infinite planets, rather than getting it from somewhere else. Only jeremy can clarify that.
I'm gonna wade out of this for now, as it's turning into a bit of a pissing competition and I don't wanna be ref.
-
Of course it's larger than what we can see. that's not in dispute. I am glad that you have changed your position on there being an infinite number of worlds.
Are you totally incapable of reading comprehension? I haven't changed my position, you are just pretending I have.
Given that the number of worlds could be finite,
Or infinite.
we are back where we began - it is impossible for us to know the odds of there being life on another world.
You don't need to know the precise probability.
Do you even remember how we got on to this subject, by the way?
Yup! we got onto it with you stating that you believe that there is life elsewhere, and me pointing out that we do not have sufficient data to know whether that is the case or not, and so this was an example of you believing in something for which there is no evidence. You claimed that the evidence is in the statistics, and that the odds of there being life elsewhere was "approaching 100%", and that this was known because of the fact that there are an infinite number of worlds.
My position throughout has been that we simply do not know what the odds are, so we have no idea at all whether it is likely that there is life elsewhere or not. I hope there is, that'd be great, but we simply don't know.
Your position throughout has been that we do know that it is likely. Given that we do not know that there are infinite worlds, how do we know that it is likely that there is life elsewhere?
-
Careful Len.
If, according to you, we cannot find morality in the universe, how are we going to find meaning?
You won't find meaning. It is up to each one of us to give his life some meaning if he needs, but as I have already said, most people don't bother with such thoughts, they just get on with life.
I think you mean it is up to us to Invent meaning....and if as you seem to suggest we invent our morals and meaning........how is that more virtuous than inventing something greater or more creative or more benevolent or more loving than ourselves?
Because giving your life meaning yourself makes much more sense than inventing something else to do the job.
I for one have discovered meaning. You have had to invent yours.
Well, in fairness, you haven't discovered anything ... you have just swallowed a story invented by an ancient people thousands of years ago. What exactly do you mean by "meaning"?
This post sounds like a good, sentimental script Len but ultimately meaningless........as you well know.
-
This post sounds like a good, sentimental script Len but ultimately meaningless........as you well know.
I have answered your post honestly and told you what I believe and how I feel about life. If you find that meaningless, I'm sorry I wasted the time.