Wasting time with philosophical subjects

[Hypersmurf]

Hm. I thought Sagan had suggested silicon. I may be misremembering, but it would make more chemical sense to use silicon.

I'm a doctor, not a bricklayer, damn it!

-Hyp.

 

[Jdvn1]

Again, yes and no. In some ways, we can see farther away better than we can see nearby - we know the structures of distant nebulae better than we know our own Oort cloud, for example. Distant stars are easier to see than most asteroids, and so on.

Um. We might know more about the structure of a distant nebulae better than our own, but we have a lot more details on our own. We can list millions of facts about a few planets. That's more than we can say for the rest of the universe.

And, in terms of determining what the very basic rules of physics are, the stars and high-energy objects are a darned good source of information, and we see them pretty well. In terms of the fundamental interactions, we know quite a bit.

I suppose that may be true but we haven't been able to delve very much into the question, "Can stars function in a different way that we haven't observed?" We only know what we've seen, which is the point of science--to explain what we observe.

Yes, and the age of that information is a help, rather than a hindrance. One you've seen one main sequence star, you've seen them all. Looking back in time allows us a greater bredth of information over a larger range of conditions - it increases our understanding, rather than limiting it.

The interactions that go on in a star aren't perfect. We can't predict exactly what will happen to a specific star or galaxy. Is it possible that they've all exploded by now? Yes. It's unlikely, but possible.

To link this to another part of this thread - we cannot say how much we know (a sort of scientific agnosticism). Only a third party who knows a great deal more than us could say that we only have a small part of the picture. Unless you've been in contact with such an entity, no estimation of the completeness of our models can be made.

... Maybe you're getting off track, but remember the assumption. An infinite universe. Assuming there is an infinite universe, there is also an infinite number of things in it. Proportionally, the amount we know is (number)/infinity, which goes to zero. I don't need to be in contact with any entity to tell me that basic math functions.

Or maybe I need to explain this in another way. We can only perceive things a certain distance away. Also, our perception is hindered by a number of other things, including galaxies and gravity. Let's say we can see things 100 trillion light years out. If the universe is infinite, how do we know what's at the 101 trillionth light year? Sure, it might be empty, but that's a 'fact' that we can't know. Then, what's at the 200 trillianth light year? We can't know, again. Already, our knowledge of the universe is cut down to a fraction of what it used to be. Then, the 400 trillianth light year? Then, the zillionth light year? Eventually, the amount we know, proportionally, is an amazingly small amount.

You're making an unfounded generalization that what is possible on a micro level is also possible on a macro level, that quantum mechanics trumps all other laws on all scales.

No, just on the scale of infinity. That's not an unfounded generalization at all. That's our assumption. If there's a 10^10 000 000 000 to 1 chance, against, of a flying pig being formed, and you have an infinite number of tries to do it, it will eventually happen. Eventually you'll try it more than 10^10 000 000 000 times.

You're also hiding behind the word "very". "Very" conceals many things. "Very, very unlilikely" covers everything from winning the lottery and getting hit bylightning to a thing that would not have happened once even if the Universe were several thousands of times older than it is.

You're right. It's very unlikely to happen to you since we're not in an infinite universe. The probability is probably to the order of 10^10000000000 to 1 against, by which I mean to say that in 1000 lifespans of the universe, it probably wouldn't happen once.

With probability, as with spacial and temporal measurement, you eventually hit a scale where measurement becomes meaningless - you can't measure a distance shorter than a Planck length, and beyond a certain point, an improbable event becomes impossible.

That's normally true, but not with our assumption. Improbable becomes certain in an infinite universe.

I don't know your education, but to a professional scientist, "law" equates to "sufficiently well-tested theory". And, like Newtonian gravity and Ensteinian Relativity, quantum mechanics has been put through the ringer. It makes every single piece of solid-state electronics on the planet run. The current models give amazingly accurate predictions from zero energy up through and beyond the energies found within stars. Up at that high end, it needs refinement. And up beyond that, when gravity starts to be an issue, we need work, yes.

Oh, yes, Newton's laws. Right. The ones with fail at the subatomic level? We amended that when we figured out what subatomic particles were and that they interacted differently than other objects. Convenient to be able to change laws. Relativity and Quantum Mechanics only serve to prove my point. To a professional scientist, laws serve as a benchmark, but are also subject to change. Then again, some scientists got killed for that, but that's a different issue. Currently, scientists are comfortable with the idea that most of the theories work most of the time, but they may never understand exactly how water currents work even on the earth's surface. Meteorology may always be a source of frustration for scientists. Physicists have been working on currents for a long time and haven't gotten much farther than recognizing patterns, much less coming up with laws to determine what happens when.

But, down around where we live, in my room where this pig is supposed to show up, it works just fine, thanks. The "certain instances" you mention are the conditions seen throughout the billions and billions of cubic light years of space we can see. "Certain instances" means - "the visible Universe".

Well, black holes are visible, but the math that goes behind them is considered flawed by many. Hawkings did do a good job, though, with spotting them and coming up with some strong theories. They're not laws by any means, though. Normal physics doesn't work with them, though. And, besides, who cares about visible universe if we're assuming an infinite universe? There might be a few galaxies we can't see that are Nitrogen-based. There might be another that's Silicon-based. Maybe there's one out there that's Mercury-based or Antimony-based. Maybe we just can't see it. You may be content in your room, but the universe goes out a bit farther than that.

 

[Umbran]

The interactions that go on in a star aren't perfect. We can't predict exactly what will happen to a specific star or galaxy.

Of course not. If nothing else, we don't know the initial conditions for particular stars or galaxies. Failure to predict exactly what happens does nto equate to not understanding what's going on inside.

Maybe you're getting off track, but remember the assumption. An infinite universe. Assuming there is an infinite universe, there is also an infinite number of things in it. Proportionally, the amount we know is (number)/infinity, which goes to zero. I don't need to be in contact with any entity to tell me that basic math functions.

I'm not off track at all. You are overgeneralizing again.

First - an infinite space does nto imply an infinite number of things. If you want to be really picky about assumptions, apply the same rigor to yourself. Infinite size and infinite contents are separate assumptions.

Second - even having infinite things does not go far enough. The quantum mechanics you depend upon to give you your "anything could happen" also vastly reduces the problem, as it requires that particles of the same type be interchangeable. All electrons behave the same. Once you know how one electron behaves, you know how they all behave. Same for all the other constituent particles.

If you have infinite stuff, built out of a finite set of building blocks (as we seem to have), you can learn all what there is to know about those building blocks, and then have a handle on how all the infinite matter in the infinite universe behaves.

In order to approach your goal, you need an infinite universe, filled with an infinite variety of fundamentally differeint things. That would be another separate assumption, and not at all in accord with what we see in our universe.

That's normally true, but not with our assumption. Improbable becomes certain in an infinite universe.

I return to what I said earlier - infinite space and time are not sufficient. YOu need a number of other assumptions to make it work. And even then, there's always a way to construct an idea of a thing that contradicts the reality you have at hand.

Well, black holes are visible, but the math that goes behind them is considered flawed by many. Hawkings did do a good job, though, with spotting them and coming up with some strong theories.

Name dropping is more fun, but I fail to see how Hawking is relevant to our conversation.

And, besides, who cares about visible universe if we're assuming an infinite universe?

People who dont' want to assume their conclusions do. Sure, if you choose to claim that all things Mankind has ever seen can be dismissed as "local phenomena", then your position is ironclad - but it is then also self-referential, circular logic. What good is that?

You may be content in your room, but the universe goes out a bit farther than that.

Everywhere else, you failed to make enough assuptions to support your position, and here you assume waaaay too much. Should I take it that you feel your position is too weak to stand on it's own merits, so that you feel a need to strengthen it by attacking me rather than my logic? I hope not. It is an old trick, but it has no place here.

 

[Abstraction]

The only thing that truly exists is me. Everything and everybody else is just a figment of my imagination.

 

[der_kluge]

I thought this thread might like this link:
http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/125th/

It's 125 questions scientists can't answer. Some of the questions I can't even understand, like some of the math ones.

It's an (admittedly unobtainable) dream of mine to solve one of life's greatest mysteries. In my delusion, I stumble upon the answer to something profound with a freak accident involving household appliances and basic household ingredients. I know this will never happen, but I enjoy thinking about it.

Sometimes I like reading questions like this, because I know what to look out for then.

I also enjoy seeing people debate things like this (like here), but then secretly laugh at people talk about things they know nothing about. It's kind of funny in a weird way.

 

[Torm]

I am wondering if I replace the "-" of this G-d by a "o", if you will feel compelled to save the post on a hard drive and take care to never delete it... (no offense intended ).

None taken. I don't omit the 'o' for my own benefit, I do it to avoid offending people of certain other beliefs. And yes, I know a person could spend all day taking extra measures to avoid offending people, but to me, omitting an 'o' doesn't seem too much to ask - especially once you get used to it and can type it as quickly either way.

On a completely unrelated tangent, how have things been going with you? The last time I saw you post anything about it, you were worried about being homeless. Can I take your continued access to ENWorld as a sign that things are doing at least "okay"?

 

[Turanil]

On a completely unrelated tangent, how have things been going with you? The last time I saw you post anything about it, you were worried about being homeless. Can I take your continued access to ENWorld as a sign that things are doing at least "okay"?

I do find little job opportunities here and there that help me get by, day after day, yet future is incertain. I also had the luck to meet a wonderful woman who doesn't mind my poverty and help me financially. I just hope I may eventually find a decent and regular source of income. :\

 

[ragboy]

I just hope I may eventually find a decent and regular source of income. :\

Sounds like you already have. Just don't make her mad.

 

[Jdvn1]

Of course not. If nothing else, we don't know the initial conditions for particular stars or galaxies. Failure to predict exactly what happens does nto equate to not understanding what's going on inside.

But it does mean we don't fully understand why an how things don't happen perfectly. If we did, we could calculate it. Even in what we do know, there's stuff we don't.

I'm not off track at all. You are overgeneralizing again.

First - an infinite space does nto imply an infinite number of things. If you want to be really picky about assumptions, apply the same rigor to yourself. Infinite size and infinite contents are separate assumptions.

Interestingly, that's untrue. In an infinite universe... here, thing about this. We can see 200 units away. Is there stuff in the 201st unit? Maybe, maybe not. We can apply a percentage possibility, though. The 201st might not have anything, but what about the 202nd? Maybe, maybe not. Eventually, there'll be stuff. Then, eventually, there'll be more stuff. And more stuff. And since we're doing this forever, the stuff will go on forever.

Second - even having infinite things does not go far enough. The quantum mechanics you depend upon to give you your "anything could happen" also vastly reduces the problem, as it requires that particles of the same type be interchangeable. All electrons behave the same. Once you know how one electron behaves, you know how they all behave. Same for all the other constituent particles.

Electrons are interchangeable with other electrons. I don't see the problem here. Technically, if all stuff is made up of the same smaller stuff (ie, as String Theory might say, or many other "good" theories would say), then that means more stuff is interchangeable.

If you have infinite stuff, built out of a finite set of building blocks (as we seem to have), you can learn all what there is to know about those building blocks, and then have a handle on how all the infinite matter in the infinite universe behaves.

And yet we haven't learned all there is to know about the building blocks and we don't understand how everything behaves, so we can't know this is true. It's possible there's an infinite amount of things to know about the building blocks. Who says knowledge is finite? I think there are too many assumptions here. And who says we know what all the building blocks are? And who says we have a finite set of building blocks? You're limiting yourself to what we've seen.

In order to approach your goal, you need an infinite universe, filled with an infinite variety of fundamentally differeint things. That would be another separate assumption, and not at all in accord with what we see in our universe.

See above. You donj't know we don't have fundamentally different things in our universe.

I return to what I said earlier - infinite space and time are not sufficient. YOu need a number of other assumptions to make it work. And even then, there's always a way to construct an idea of a thing that contradicts the reality you have at hand.

See above. Not assumptions. (I think maybe we can boil down the discussion to that stuff up there, or at least combine related stuff)

And who says our perception of reality is consisent throughout the universe? That'd be an assumption.

Name dropping is more fun, but I fail to see how Hawking is relevant to our conversation.

The theories behind black holes were primarily developed by Hawking. Black holes are an example of where science is shaky.

People who dont' want to assume their conclusions do. Sure, if you choose to claim that all things Mankind has ever seen can be dismissed as "local phenomena", then your position is ironclad - but it is then also self-referential, circular logic. What good is that?

But how can you assume all things Mankind has ever seen isn't local phenomena? Is there a chance that it is local phenomena? If there's a chance it's local phenomena, then in an infinite universe there must be other phenomena we haven't seen. This argument only works because we're talking about an infinite universe. The only assumption I'm working with is the one we agreed to start from.

Everywhere else, you failed to make enough assuptions to support your position, and here you assume waaaay too much. Should I take it that you feel your position is too weak to stand on it's own merits, so that you feel a need to strengthen it by attacking me rather than my logic? I hope not. It is an old trick, but it has no place here.

Was I attacking you? If I did, I didn't mean to. If the original argument is assuming too much, though, then I think we're on very different pages here.

 

[RandomPrecision]

Just 'cuz they don't make sense to you doesn't mean it's impossible.

Yeah it does. Things that are logically impossible are, by definition, impossible.

Our logic is very constraied by our observations. What we observe is a very small fraction of reality. Truth doesn't have to be anything like what we see.

Logic and perception are not one and the same. I don't think we should go by perception at all - it can be deceptive. Logic, however, is not.

And about that universe thing, I still say finite but boundless. An infinite universe doesn't make sense, because either there's an infinite amount of matter in it, or else there's an infinite amount of nothingness. Bounded universes don't make sense - would we just eventually hit the wall? Instead, if you keep heading the same direction, I say that many, many eons later, you'll arrive at the point you left from (of course, everything being relative, it won't measurably be the same place, but if you could somehow leave a permanent mark at given coordinates, you'd arrive there again.).