Can we handle not being alone?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Moiraine: What I have read is that the chance that other sentient beings exist in the universe are quite big, but the chance of them being close enough to someday meet us are quite small. So the chance that this topic question be answered before Ziroc dies of old age are quite very small indeed. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Well, well, look what the cat dragged in! Fancy seeing you here. How the heck are you?

[Yorick]

Originally posted by frudi_x: quote: I see you replicated the conditions of primordial earth. Even adding a congnisant brain (a human one in this case) to assemble the compenents and thus initiate the sequence. How interesting.

so you're saying that any experiment done by humans is unrepresentative of conditions found in nature, because there is a consciousness behind the experiment? in that case we should just give up on science as it can't really teach us anything about the world around us...
in this particular experiment nobody assembled the components, they just mixed up the gases believed to comprise Earth's atmosphere billions of years ago, added an occasional spark to simulate lightning and analysed the mixture after a couple of weeks. the 'assembling' part took care of itself, a result of natural laws. the same laws that brought the same components to the surface of the Earth over four billion years ago.
of course there are criticisms of these experiments, the primary one being that Earth's primordial atmosphere was not as reducing as assumed in the experiment. this is still open for debate, but even if so it would basicly just slow down the formation of complex organic molecules, they would still form eventually. there was plenty of time...[/QUOTE]"Nobody assembled the components? They just mixed up the gasses believed to comprise the earths atmosphere?????

Are you even aware of the contradiction? Were the gasses just in the lab already or did you humans intending on doing the experiment ensure the gasses were there? Secondly, you "added an occassional spark" Finally, there was an intent behind the whole process!!

No, it is impossible to replicate what you believe happened, because once you do anything to create or simulate the environment, you are doing exactly what I believe happened. CREATING. You are simulating an intended creation, not a random occurence.

The existence of a director. A creative mind behind the whole process is what I am talking about. A creator vastly increases the odds of the whole thing taking place, in fact there are no odds, because it falls to intent not chance.

'probably' is just a word for describing probability, even if rather numericly inaccurate. in this case used to convey the fact that all conditions for the emergance of life existed on Earth half a billion years before the current DNA based life appeared (it was actually initially based on RNA or even something simpler). it is therefore reasonable to assume that life did indeed develop before 3.8 billion years ago (the age of the oldes phosilized microorganisms), but was wiped out by giant impacts that were common until 3.9 billion years ago. as for 'probability' in science - as i said, the word is only a rather crude way to express probability. and that's what science is really about - probability. and aproximation.

Which doesn't change my statements that "probably" holds no water. 60% likelihood is still 40% unlikelyhood. There is no guarantee.

but you don't need anyone to ignite a fire to get a cooked fish, as long as you just have a big enough ocean and enough time to wait! eventually some poor fish somewhere will get too close to an undewater heat source (a heat vent, an underwater volcano, a lava flow...) and get cooked, no 'divine' intervention necessary. of course, that will leave you with just one cooked fish and you'll have to wait a while to get another one. life however, is very resiliant and once it begins it's not easy to get rid of it.

That wasn't the point. Check my statement again. I said it's inevitable that a fish over a fire will cook. Which is an analogy to what you're saying, that given the right circumstances a thing will happen. That's such a statement of the obvious! Given the right circumstance a baby will be born. Given the right circumstances, a rock will fall. I mean c'mon! That can be said about anything. It proves nothing. The point I made was that someone put the elements in place for the circumstances to exist - ie. light the fire, have sex or drop the rock.

You're working on proving the HOW, but that doesn't take a creator out of the picture. You're adding a spark, he added a spark. You put the gasses together, he put the gasses together. In my perception you're doing a great job of replicating creation, not chance.

Power to you though. Hope you find out more. I love discovering the how, who and why.

what consitutes a scientific proof anyway? it's just about using existing knowledge to describe something to within a certain degree of certainty. to make the explanation probable enough. as for assumptions, they are a key asspect of furthering our knowledge, as without assumptions on the nature of new phenomena science could not advance.

A scientific experiment involves testing positive outcomes and negative outcomes. Testing the method, but then testing the reverse method. Mixing up the process so that any variables are accounted for.

The variables in the earths development are unthinkably large. The rotational axis, the closeness to the sun, the moons effect, the levels of oxygen balanced with carbon dioxide, the heat of the core, the radiation shields in the atmosphere... it goes on and on. All the variables need to be accounted for and tested with and without. Would life have developed if the planet was closer to the sun? But then the closeness creates a whole other set of variables.

I am happy not knowing, and exploring what we DO know, and CAN know, while reveling in the mystery. We were not there. We did not see. At most we can speculate on the evidence we have, but what if a key component is missing? Gone?

We would never even know.

everything after 10^-43 of a second after the creation of the universe is a consequence of the actions of natural laws. everything after that moment can be explained by HOW, no WHY's are required. wheter or not some consiousness had something to do with the would-be-universe before the 10^-43 second mark, that's a matter of bersonal beliefs - those however have nothing to do with science.

The science of theology attempts to look at the question of "why" and "who". With the "how", "when" and "where" you then get a complete picture.

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by Yorick: Well, well, look what the cat dragged in! Fancy seeing you here. How the heck are you?

Hi Yorick ! [img]graemlins/happywave.gif[/img] I am fine, TY, and Luc and Marco also. Just came back from vacation. I may post quite irregularly because we had a disagreement with our phone-and-Internet provider (long story, essentially we are very stubborn people refusing to pay for the other side's blunders ), so I have lost my home connection for some time, and can come on IW only from work.

BTW, I disagree with your belief that a creator would induce more chances of sentient beings in the universe. I believe the opposite : if there is no creator, then the requisite is "There exists sentient life forms" - any kind; if there is, then the requisite is the above plus all additional requisites the creator selects. The more the requisites, the less the chances. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Or maybe there are many many creators out there.

[Timber Loftis]

After getting a chastising from Yorick about it, I now renew my earlier objection. And, no, it's not the kind of thing for pm so long as he insists on preaching herein. Yorick, whatever the merits of your post to frudi, please, based on the fact that it skirts over the line on the moratorium, take it to pm.

[img]graemlins/PM_smiley.gif[/img]

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by frudi_x: everything after 10^-43 of a second after the creation of the universe is a consequence of the actions of natural laws. everything after that moment can be explained by HOW, no WHY's are required. wheter or not some consiousness had something to do with the would-be-universe before the 10^-43 second mark, that's a matter of bersonal beliefs - those however have nothing to do with science.

Isn't science, as we know it basicly the pursuit of the knowledge of Why, How, Where, When, and What?

just to let you know where I'm coming from, I've preached the same thing about 10^-43 of a second after the event as you, how be it in realtion to time and the infinite vs. the finite.

[Nightwing]

It's hard for people to grasp something that has no beginning. If the Universe is infinite then there will always be something before and after. As human we want to astablish clear boundries. If all these random events happened here to produce life and the universe is infinate deductive logic would suggest life elseware. We can't prove it but we sure can make an educated guess.

The only reason I would want immortality is to see the vastness of the universe. It excites me so much to think how much more there is for us to see.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Moiraine: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: Well, well, look what the cat dragged in! Fancy seeing you here. How the heck are you?

Hi Yorick ! [img]graemlins/happywave.gif[/img] I am fine, TY, and Luc and Marco also. Just came back from vacation. I may post quite irregularly because we had a disagreement with our phone-and-Internet provider (long story, essentially we are very stubborn people refusing to pay for the other side's blunders ), so I have lost my home connection for some time, and can come on IW only from work.

BTW, I disagree with your belief that a creator would induce more chances of sentient beings in the universe. I believe the opposite : if there is no creator, then the requisite is "There exists sentient life forms" - any kind; if there is, then the requisite is the above plus all additional requisites the creator selects. The more the requisites, the less the chances. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Or maybe there are many many creators out there. [/QUOTE]Well it's good to see you. I don't have an email address for you anymore. Can you PM one? I only have the wanadoo one.

Re. the creator argument, fair enough and I respect your view. We've agreed to disagree for ages now. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: After getting a chastising from Yorick about it, I now renew my earlier objection. And, no, it's not the kind of thing for pm so long as he insists on preaching herein. Yorick, whatever the merits of your post to frudi, please, based on the fact that it skirts over the line on the moratorium, take it to pm. [img]graemlins/PM_smiley.gif[/img]

The topic is "Can We handle not being alone". Desist in the harrasment and stick to the topic. I am on topic and if the topic is allowed, am allowed to discuss why I do not believe we are alone like anyone else. If a mod has an issue with what I'm saying they can say so. Butt out Timber and stop derailing the topic.

[Mouse]

Right, that's enough of the personal stuff, can everyone get back on topic now??

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Nightwing: It's hard for people to grasp something that has no beginning. If the Universe is infinite then there will always be something before and after. As human we want to astablish clear boundries. If all these random events happened here to produce life and the universe is infinate deductive logic would suggest life elseware. We can't prove it but we sure can make an educated guess. The only reason I would want immortality is to see the vastness of the universe. It excites me so much to think how much more there is for us to see.

There are billions who have believed in a sentinet being that has no beginning. It can't be THAT hard.

I agree it is a brain bending concept to get your head around, considering that our own self aware memory has a sequential limit - ie beginning.