shakran

Yes, absolutely. Space has such amazing potential for the human race. Sure, we won't live to see most of the benefits of it, but it's important for us to start getting on with it so later generations can.

The only problem is that I want my tax dollars going toward it when we can AFFORD it. We can't afford it now.



As for the FTL debate, this is pretty much semantics. I'm saying there's a way to get somewhere faster than you could if you travelled there at light speed in normal space. It's 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.

ObieX

I would only want any experimentation on the warping/tearing of any significant portions of space-time to be done FAR from earth, possibly even outside our solar system, i dont want the earth to collapse or the gravity in our solar system messed up.

And personally I think i'd go with option #3 when it comes to the Fermi paradox. Call me an optimist if you must, but there has been so much "documentation" about things like angels, abductions, UFOs, andcient drawings etc, to support atleast SOME arguement toward that position.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

Mephisto2

Now I know what the X in your name means ObieX.



Watch the skies!
I want to believe...


Heh


Mr Mephisto

Mephisto2

Not really.

I was attacked for stating that you can't go faster than the speed of light. You can't. You can bend space, but that's completely different.

Besides, these are just theories in any case. I still maintain that you won't see it happen.

You might see slower than light probes that are sent to distant stars. But colony ships? I doubt it. Very very much.


Mr Mephisto

ObieX

Call me crazy, but when you see stuff like ancient batteries and light bulbs it makes you stop to consider

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/chaptera/



A link to the video of the Light bulb remade by scientists using the ancient instructions, and it actually working! > http://therev67.tripod.com/capture.mpg

Edit: Bah! i cant direct link the video, but you can get it clicking the first link, or going here: http://therev67.tripod.com/tripodlight.htm

__________________
We Must Dissent.

Yakk

Please replace 1) with "Humanity is the only intelligent life in the Galaxy", or even in the local cluster of Galaxies.

The Universe is BIG, and the Milky Way is small. We are near the edge, and 30,000 light years out. We have neigbours on the order of 4 light years away.

The 2nd nearest spiral Galaxy is 12 million light years away.

Here to the nearest star is 3 million times closer than such a hop, skip and jump.

We can currently send ships to Pluto, which is about 34 thousand light seconds away. Alpha Centauri is about 5 million light seconds away.

Distance to Alpha C/Distance to Pluto = 160.
Distance to 2nd nearest Galaxy/Distance to Alpha C = 3,000,000

I guess you could argue that a Galaxy colonized by intelligent life would be easy to see. But, the claim that "intergalaxy" or "inter galactic cluster" colonization is difficult is easier to swallow than "we can't make it next door".

All we need is the ability to make a ship capable of surviving in vacuum for a few centuries. Pushing it isn't that hard. And if we really needed help braking, send 5 or 50 ships, 4 or 49 of which fire lazers back and help the first ship slow down.

A society capable of both controling the energy required for interstellar travel, which doesn't destroy itself through use of such levels of energy, is another problem.

Angels, Abductions and UFO's can all be explained. Someone made a machine recently that gives you the feeling of a familiar, disembodied presence, by shoving E-M fields into your brain.

Either the aliens are damn good at hiding right under our noses, or it's a matter of brain farts.

*nod*, that is tricky. So, if you can't support life, don't send life.

Why is it unlikely? Alpha-C is only 160 times further away than Pluto. We can send probes to Pluto without mechanical breakdown.

Now, all we need to send is a Van Neumann machine (in one piece or in many), going a bit faster, with some means of braking, and capable of landing on an asteroid.

Now, by 'all we need' I am describig an endevour that makes the Apollo mission look like a walk in the park. The only 'hard' part is building a 'small' self-contained Van Neumann machine (ie, one much smaller than the industrial civilization and supporting ecosystem Van Neumann machine we have).

While a 300 to 3000 year journey seems reasonable (1% or 0.1% of lightspeed trip to a nearby star), a 100,000,000 to 1,000,000,000 year journey (same speed trip between Galaxies) is less so.

In some ways, it isn't more wonkey than heavier-than-air flight, or faster-than-sound flight. Only in some ways.

My biggest objection to them is all forms of FTL-travel seem to give you time travel and causality violation. It doesn't matter if you take shortcuts -- if you take 2 trips involving 2 shortcuts, you can arrive before you leave.

You have to invent physics to avoid causality violations (either reality-splitting or some kind of background reference frame that only applies to FTL travel).

Oh, and you can also rely on the weak anthropomophic principle. If intellgence beating you to a planet makes it basically impossible for intelligence to evolve and develop, it shouldn't be surprising that as a developing intelligence we don't see other intelligences around. In other words, someone had to be first -- and if the first guy prevents the later guys, then everyone is first.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

pan6467

Why would aliens that can travel space and would be far far superior to us try to make contact?

I mean to believe we are significant enough to make contact with is a tad egotistical. To be honest, if I were an alien, I might observe you but I wouldn't contact you until war was a thing of the past. Why would I want to contact you only to have you use my technology to not just kill each other off but quite possibly to kill me off?

Just an Argument against those saying there is no intelligently superior life out there because we haven't been contacted.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

GMontag

Your out of hand dismissal of quantum teleportation is unwarranted. Yes, the phenomena are based upon physics at the quantum level, but that does not mean they can be manipulated into appearing at the macroscopic level as well. It seems right now that quantum entanglement makes instantaneous communication (and therefore instantaneous travel) possible.

Mephisto2

It's not an out of hand dismissal.

I also assume you mean "that does not mean they can NOT be manipulated into appearing at the macroscopic level as well."

Well, I think it does. As do every single physicist I've heard or book I've read. The Heisenberg Principle requires the "energy borrowed" (for such things as quantum tunnelling or virtual particles) to be repaid within an almost infintesimal amount of time. We're talking about actions and periods at the Planck level here.

Very small.

So, to recap, I didn't dismiss them. I just said that they're so statistically unlikely at the macroscopic level as to be effectively impossible.


Mr Mephisto

Mephisto2

That's my whole point.

I contend that FTL travel, or even pseudo-FTL travel, is not realistic. Your suggestion, shared by the vast majority of serious commentators and theorists, that sub-lightspeed travel is workable, is much more reasonable. Indeed, we know it's conceptually possible.

However, theoretically possible and actually possible to implement are two different things.

Just because something is possible within the laws of physics, does not mean it can be done. This seems to be a subtle difference a lot of people here are ignoring.

One would assume that if interstellar travel was possible (or "implementable" if you prefer), then we would have been visited by now.

It's just as easy to hypothesize that civilizations destroy themselves (or are destroyed) before they reach the technological level required for sub-lightspeed interstellar travel.

Well, that's my point. I said I could envisage interstellar probes. At least, some far time into the future. But not interstellar colony ships. As Hobes said, humans are "nasty, brutish and short", and we're doomed to extinction on this rock. I don't think we'll even last the 5-6 billion years before it's swallowed by the sun.

I'm also sceptical of the possibility of true artificial intelligence. Then there's the whole concept of embuing replicants of human intelligence in said machines. Two huge leaps that are even further away than interstellar travel itself. We don't even know what consciousness is, how it is defined, how it is created or develops... how can we even begin to think about creating it by design.

I shall have to check this. I'm surprised if that's the figure.

Then you and I agree on this.

I'm not a fan of the anthropomorphic principle. It seems to be a trite cyclical and self-sustaining argument.

It's kinda like saying that Australia exists, and was created for my existence, because I exist in it. Bah...


Mr Mephisto

GMontag

Yes, that "can" was supposed to be a "can't".

We are talking about two different things here. You are talking about quantum tunnelling past potential energy barriers, I'm talking about quantum entanglement producing instantaneous communication. Quantum tunneling obviously can't be used for FTL travel. Particles can't tunnel outside of their light cone anyway. Quantum entanglement, however, does appear to allow instantaneous communication over any distance. How this is possible in light of relativity hasn't been fully worked out just yet.

Kadath

I apologize for my tone. It was completely unwarranted.

Einstein's Theory of Relativity can hardly be considered a proven law of physics. It's not as if I'm arguing against gravity here. No one knows anything about the fundamental nature of the universe -- it's all unproven hypotheses. I am not attached to the idea of interstellar travel; I don't give a crap about leaving the planet. I think not funding NASA because you don't think we can reach another solar system is pretty crazy, if only because space exploration has helped advance other fields -- how many products designed for space travel have been made part of our everyday lives?

__________________
it's quiet in here

Mephisto2

OK, it appears we are talking about two different things.

Quantum entanglement is indeed one of those manisfestations of "quantum wierdness" that we don't really understand. Perhaps it does provide slim chances for FTL communication; who knows? But not FTL travel, and that was the original contention of this argument.

Mr Mephisto

Mephisto2

Don't worry about it. I was a bit pompous in my response anyway!


Well, I think it can. It was proven. At least, its predications shown as accurate. Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity was proven as accurate in 1919 when British Astronomer Sir Arthur Eddington measured light "bending" around an eclipse off the coast of Africa. Check out http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/coles.asp

Further proofs were offered in 1998 (http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/.../m27-031.shtml), 2003 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2639043.stm) and just very recently in October of 2004 (http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/3-9-2004-51444.asp)


Not so.

Unless we descend into philosophical debate on the nature of "proof" "reality" and "science"... But that would get us nowhere.

Well, there's the pen that can write upside down. And then there's the... erm... Hmmm



Mr Mephisto

Yakk

Or, we could become the first in the local area to figure it out.

It makes just as much sense to think that intelligent life, once it expands over the galaxy, will prevent intelligent life from appearing spontaniously like we did.

We send non-life. It arrives, and builds stuff. Mines asteroids and shit. Builds solar panels, seals a rock up. It then starts doing biochemistry, and builds an ecosystem.

Eventually it makes humans.

To pull this off successfully, we'd have to do some simply monsterous experiments -- raise humans without human interaction, experiment with what makes successful human-type beings, within the solar system, until we learn how to bootstrap human intelligence.

Pluto is about 72 AU out.
1 AU = 8 light minutes.
A-C is about 4 light years away.

4 * 365 * 24 * 60 = 2102400 light minutes
8 * 72 = 576 light minutes

AC/Pluto = 3650

Oops, you are right. I forgot to multiply by 24. =(

That's the strong anthropomorphic principle.

The weak one says "we are in the time and place in the universe where life can exist, because otherwise we wouldn't be here to see it".

Most planets aren't suitable to life. Most starts aren't suitable to planets with life. Most periods of the universe aren't suitable to life. (by life, I mean 'life as we know it')

It is shocking how well designed Earth is to life -- far less shocking when you realize that if Earth wasn't good for life, we wouldn't be shocked by it.

Someone has to be first.

Actually, it seems as if instantanious communication can't be exploited. There is either FTL information transfer that can't be exploited for any reason other than generating the proper quantum probabilities, or the many-universe explanation of Q-M is by far the simplest explanation.

Now, the many-universe interpritation makes it really clear that no FTL-communication is possible via those mechanisms. Both the FTL-info-transfer and many-universe interpritation have the same mathematical models -- they both explain the exact same phenomina -- thus, the FTL-info-transfer you are putting your hopes on won't let you send a postcard.

Because technology and energy manipulation is loud.

I believe that we are significant enough to bother hiding from is a tad egotistical.

Now, it could be that the galaxy-occupying intelligence allows intelligent life to develop within fallow areas for whatever reason. But it would be a matter of doing it on purpose.

Actually, Einstein's Theory of Relativity is one of the most proven laws of physics out there. It matches more of reality he hadn't had experience with than pretty much anything else I can think of.

Newton described how things fell, and wrote it up quite well. Einstein predicted that light would be bent by gravity, that frame-dragging would occur. The equations describe and explain red-shift, model the existance of black holes, and have lasted through more scientific testing than was done in all the centuries before he was born.

CCDs. Hubble CCD technology is used in breast cancer screening.
Various and sundery Semiconductor technologies.
Baby food (two essential fatty acids added, part of NASA long-term space ration research)
Water purificationsystems (Regeneratble Biocide Deliery Unit, uses Iodine instead of Cholrine)
Pool Purification
Ribbed Swimsuits, Better Golf Balls, Sports Training, Shoes, Flat Panel TV, Better Batteries, Trash compactors, freeze-dried foot, sports bras, smoke detectors
Solar power
Continuous Baroroator
Forest management
Fire-resistant material
Aluminized polymer film (thin, high-insulation, material, for homes)
Laser Angioplasty with 'cool' lasers
Child Ocular Screening
Magnetic Liquids (used in semiconductor manufacture)
Robotics (ex: welding sensor system)
Microlasers (mmm, fibreoptics)
Magnetic Bearing System (power generation, gas tranportation, oil refining, etc)
Computer training
High-pressure waterstripping
Variable Polarity Plasma Arc (advanced welding torch)
Personal Alarm System (used by prison guards, amoung other things)
Jaws of Life
Fireman's Air Tanks (20 lbs for 30 minutes of air -- double pressure, 33% of weight)
Doppler radar
Firefighter's radios
Better brakes
Toolbooth air purification
Lighter helicopters, better aircraft engines
Better wings on corperate jets
Better school buses

A good chunck of NASA is a bunch of extremely smart people solving problems and working on something they truely believe in. This means they do good work, and the solutions to the problems they run into tend to have other uses.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Mephisto2

Why is that? What makes you think that intelligent life would "prevent" additional intelligent life from appearing? Certainly, that goes against the grain of current humanist thinking.

I also disagree that it is (equally) likely that human life is the "first" to appear. If the circumstances for its appearance are agreed, then statistically it should have appeared already. It's not as if 14 billion years have needed to pass before these environmental factors came about. This is not a smooth, incremental process that takes that long throughout the galaxy. It just so happens that life arose on Earth 3.8 billion years ago. There's no reason why it could not have arose before that somewhere else.

Unless we believe, as I suspect, that life is so statistically uncommon as to be almost impossible; but for ourselves. In other words, as Gould suggested, there is absolutely no gurantee that is if we "reran" the historical clock that life would appear again. It was a statistical anomaly in the first place and highly unusual. The fact that we haven't come across it anywhere else supports that hypothesis.

Hmmm... I don't think that's likely or really useful apart from as a "thougth experiment".


We can't create a single self-replicating construct at all, let alone "life". Now you suggest that we simply build a "human making machine"?!

I doubt that's possible. And even if it is possible, the technology is so far away that we won't last long enough to develop it. Most of your hyptotheses seem to be based upon an unwritten (and in my mind, unsafe) supposition. That is, that human life will last long enough to develop said technology that will ensure its perpuity. I think we will become extinct long before that happens. And I'm not even sure if it's possible in the first place.


Yes, but I find the weak anthropomorphic principle kind of useless also. It's akin to saying "You exist because I see you".

It's kinda stating the obvious. We exist because if we didn't, we wouldn't be here. Erm... so what? What does that prove?


I wouldn't say shocking. I really can't understand that hypothesis. Anthropomophism really bugs me. I just don't get it.

I could easily, and equally, say that "It's shocking that in the vast emptiness of the universe that something as beautiful as Mozart's Requiem came into existence. Therefore the universe must have been created for that to happen." Rather silly if you ask me.

We're here. We exist. That doesn't mean the universe was created for our existence. Was the universe created for the existence of pretty clouds? Nope. They just happen. Same way that life on Earth "just happened".

It was very unlikely. So what? So is getting a royal flush in poker.


Sounds too much like "space opera" science fiction to me. This kind of suggestion lies with 1950's style Hollywood movies (or Star Trek).

Agreed. See my links above.


You think the only reason we have "better school buses" is because of NASA? LOL

Well, first I was being satirical; at least in part. But your contention that improved technology will only occur if NASA is funded is simply incorrect. That is supposing that technological advances only happen

a) In the US
b) As part of NASA's programs
c) Won't occur anyway

I disagree with all three suppositions.

Yes they do and yes it does. I never suggested otherwise.


Mr Mephisto


PS - Really enjoying this thread. Great contributions so far. It's nice playing the Devil's Advocate now and again...

jonjon42

btw I would like to remind you guys that right now many people are desperately trying to save the Hubble Telescope from certain demise.

This is the stuff that needs to be continued in the space program. This telescope has been a great tool in scientific discovery. Also, no replacement is schedualed for the telescope for some time.
http://www.space.com/news/hubble_reaction_041209.html

__________________
A damn dirty hippie without the dirty part....

Mephisto2

This is agree with.

Fund the Hubble telescope. Let's concentrate on learning to walk before we try to fly...


Mr Mephisto

Ustwo

The Hubble is a lot of fun, I have a hubble image as my walpaper on my computer, but its not really learning to walk, its just peaking into the keyhole.

To me learning to walk is having sustained space exploration and exploitation. Can't expect to get out of the solar system until we have mastered it.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Ballzor

Holy hell its Deception Point all over again!

Mephisto2

How very true Ustwo. And how nicely put.


Mr Mephisto

pedro padilla

yeah, they need to find a new planet for the foreseeable future when they finally destroy this one. Most of us are not invited.

Yakk

Because the speed of evolutionary 'progress' isn't fast on the size of beings large enough to become alive. At the same time, the speed of intelligent design is alot faster.

I'd expect any intelligence that appears after the first would be designed by the first. At best, the new intelligence would evolve in the cracks and crannies. Look at humanity -- we are spread over basically the entire planet, and we just got started a few thousand years ago.

First of all, you do need a population 3 star with relatively few stellar neighbours (ie, no supernovas too near, etc), and a solar system pretty free of trash, and a wet, rocky planet in the biosphere.

It took life on earth 3.8 billion years to develop intelligence. As far as we can tell, we are the first technological civilization on the planet earth. This means, we don't know how common technological civilizations are -- they could be far rarer.

It isn't life I'm talking about. It is technological civilizations. Life is neat and all, but it doesn't pay the bills.

A technological civilization like ours either burns out quickly, or swallows the galaxy (possibly both). There are good signs that no technological civilizations have swallowed the galaxy before us (we'd expect them to leave some litter, be it E-M or physical, around here).

Machines that can build themselves and build other things are not all that far fetched. Every life form on the planet Earth is such a machine, a biological one.

I just want to add an antenna, a CPU, and teach it to eat asteroids.

We have built the DNA for a single celled organism using non-life. A fertilized egg is a human-building machine (it does need a womb to help itself out). So, you start with an artificial womb and a carefully thawed human egg.

These aren't easy problems, but they don't seem impossible.

Yes, these are long-term strategies. If humanity wipes itself out shortly, they won't work.

We look at the galaxy, and notice that most of the stars aren't fit for human life. The WAP explains this. We look at the galaxy, and notice there isn't any sign of other intelligent life. If a galaxtic civilization actually takes up resources that prevents other intelligent life from existing in some quiet corner, the WAP also explains this.

Yes, that is silly. You are attributing motivation.

Um, so, why do you think this is contradicting anything I'm saying?

I'm not talking about anthropomorphism. I'm talking about the 'weak anthropomorphic principle' (WAP). You seem to be hung up on the 'strong anthropomorphic principle', which claims that the universe's purpose is us (well, that is one view of the SAP). The WAP makes no such claim. It doesn't explain why.

A WAP-based reason why there isn't intelligent life that we can see is that intelligent life spreads nearly as quickly as light, and once it arrives other intelligent life doesn't independantly evolve.

A WAP-based reason why our star is stable, and we are at the right distance, is that if our star wasn't stable or we where too close/far we wouldn't have managed to evolve.

Same arguement. The 'universe is quiet' one is weaker, because it is concievable that intelligent life would play 'caretaker' and hide from new life... But that assumes a more benevolent life form than any humanity has ever seen.

No, I'm saying that NASA spin-off technology was used directly in improving school bus design.

This is not my contention. I was simply explaining that the money put into NASA generates not only future, long-term benefits, but also short-term spinoffs. The fact that, much like the video game industry, very capable people are willing to put forth effort at below market rates, because they want to work at NASA/on a video game, gives it another advantage.

Agreed. But, a galaxy-wide intelligence would have to do this, effectively on purpose, for humanity to evolve at all like we did. Can you imagine an intelligence evolving on Earth right now, and it barely noticing humanity -- it's only evidence of humanity being legends, and the occasional anal probe?

We'd have to hide ourselves on purpose.

I was under the impression that extremely large ground-based telescope technology was a sufficient replacement for Hubble? Not a strong impression, just something I heard.

What I want to see is using multiple orbting telescopes as one large telescope (go go QM!). We could create telescopes with the resolving power to see a planet the size of Earth as a real disk. (now, getting a large enough apature to gather the light, that's another problem! Long exposure times would make taking pictures of rapidly moving things like planets hellish)

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Jizz-Fritter

How about we master inner space, before we try space travel.

Approve of this post? YES YES (circle one)

__________________
"Principle is okay up to a certain point, but principle doesn't do any good if you lose." Dick Cheney

mrbuck12000

i like to relate stuff to lyrics i hear like this song by the drive by truckers:

PUTTIN' PEOPLE ON THE MOON
Mary Alice had a baby and he looked just like I did
We got married on a Monday and I been working ever since
Every week down at the Ford Plant but now they say they're shutting down
Goddamned Reagan in the White House and no one there gives a damn

Double Digit unemployment, TVA be shutting soon
While over there in Huntsville, They puttin' people on the moon

So I took to runnin' numbers for this man I used to know
And I sell a few narcotics and I sell a little blow
I ain't getting rich now but I'm gettin' more than by
It's really tough to make a living but a man just got to try

If I died in Colbert County, Would it make the evening news?
They too busy blowin' rockets, Puttin' people on the moon

Mary Alice quit askin' why I do the things I do
I ain't sayin' that she likes it, but what else I'm gonna do?
If I could solve the world's problems I'd probably start with hers and mine
But they can put a man on the moon
And I'm stuck in Muscle Shoals just barely scraping by

Mary Alice got cancer just like everybody here
Seems everyone I know is gettin' cancer every year
And we can't afford no insurance, I been 10 years unemployed
So she didn't get no chemo so our lives was destroyed
And nothin' ever changes, the cemetery gets more full
And now over there in Huntsville, even NASA's shut down too

Another Joker in the White House, said a change was comin' round
But I'm still workin' at The Wal Mart and Mary Alice, in the ground
And all them politicians, they all lyin' sacks of shit
They say better days upon us but I'm sucking left hind tit
And the preacher on the TV says it ain't too late for me
But I bet he drives a Cadillac and I'm broke with some hungry mouths to feed

I wish I'z still an outlaw, was a better way of life
I could clothe and feed my family still have time to love my pretty wife
And if you say I'm being punished. Ain't he got better things to do?
Turnin' mountains into oceans Puttin' people on the moon

Turnin' mountains into oceans Puttin' people on the moon

Patterson Hood / Drive-By Truckers (I-24E and I-75S Nashville to Atlanta - 11/19/2003) © Soul Dump Music (BMI)
Piano - David Barbe

mrb

__________________
"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, it's probably in Tennessee --that says, fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me ... You can't get fooled again." - G.W. Bush quoted by the Baltimore Sun - Oct 6, 2002

Mephisto2

I don't really understand your contention here. I still don't see why intelligent life evolving once precludes its evolution somewhere else.


Only if you want "Earth-like" life. As we don't understand the Universe enough, what's there to say that life could not evolve in gas giants, in interplanetary dust, in comets?

Of course, I personally don't think it can, or is likely to have evolved anywhere, but as long as we're postulating...


I disagree. Life arose on Earth 3.8 billion years ago. Quite different.

Far rarer than what? Rarer than one?


How do you know? You state the two possibilities as if they were verified and verifiable fact.

Agreed 100%. Hence the reason I believe there is no other life out there. And that life on Earth was (for want of any other term) an "aberration".

Oh, but I think they are.

And we haven't even begun to understand the most simple manifestations of 'self replicating' biological objects (ie, virii); let alone complex cellular or multi-cellular life.

Like I said, "people making machines" are a way off. Off with the fairies in my mind...


We have? Where and when?

I should have expected to have heard more about such a momentous scientific advance. Artificially created DNA?

It should be noted, by the way, that despite all the media frenzy over genetics and DNA sequencing and the Human Genome Project etc, we still don't properly understand the fundamentals of life. The role or RNA, for example, is still not properly understood (see latest New Scientist magazine for an interesting article on this).

OK, I still don't get this.

So what does the WAP provide other than useful cyclical reasoning? I'm at a loss as to what value it brings to any discussion or analysis. So much so that I can't understand why it was even formulated and given a name. Until now, I never heard or any "Weak" Anthropomorphic Principle (vis a vis the "Strong").

Please explain further or provide references to reading material. I simply can't get my head around this. WAP can reason that intelligent life spreads at nearly the speed of life? Huh?

Great discussion.


Mr Mephisto

Sun Tzu

Although I didnt research who funds Worldnetdaily (I consider sources and who funds them important); I felt the article was just good food for thought.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=33079

I agree with Mr.Mephisto in the thought that our current method of travel, wont propel humanity to where it needs to be. Thats why its my opinion that nations can hopefully someday pull there minds and resources together and focus on wormhole manipulation and similar technology.

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

Yakk

Lets say some basic amino acids got together on the planet Earth, and discovered they could reproduce. What would happen?

They would get smooshed by the highly evolved and efficient life already here. The new 'life' wouldn't stand a chance.

Mankind is ubiquitous. There isn't room on the planet earth for a new intelligent species to evolve while we are here.

It seems reasonable that this pattern would continue: if one intelligence spread over the galaxy, there wouldn't be room for an independant one to grow up. Intelligent life could design new intelligent life on purpose, but probably natural evolution wouldn't be fast enough to pull it off without the older intelligence getting involved actively.

Yes, it might be possible that it could evolve elsewhere. We have no reason to believe it could, while we do know it could appear given 'earth like' conditions (with ourselves as an example).

If, as it happens, the only reasonably metobolically fast and stable life at this stage of the universe occurs on wet, tepid, rock-balls with medium-thick atmospheres, it could be that all the requirements are less common than might be naively expected.

And, we have a pretty large amount of evidence that there hasn't been intelligent life here before us. Thus it took 3.8 billions years for life to get to intelligence. I'm not saying it had a direction, I'm just noting how long it took.

3.8 billion years is a non-trivial fraction of the universe's life span. If it took that long on Earth, possibly Earth was extremely quick at it -- if it took 10 times longer elsewhere, they wouldn't have time to develop intelligence.

If only one intelligent species gets to evolve in a galaxy, then only the fastest one would get to do it.

If it took 500 million years to go from life forming to intelligence, in a 500 billion year old, uniform-along-time, galaxy, believing that we where the first in a race would be less believeable.

But we are orbitting a 3rd generation star, and it took a good portion of the galaxy's total history for us to evolve. Assuming we are at the head of the race is far less unreasonable.

Heard the recent information that the Milky Way periodically turns into a Starburst Galaxy? This means that stars near the core of the Galaxy are not suited to life: you'd be periodically sterilized in waves of supernovas and other disruptive events.

Technological civilizations could be rarer than life or intelligent life by large factors. Maybe Earth got really lucky with plate techtonics, and thus has access to lots of metals, which are quite useful in order to get to a real technological civillization.

I don't, I was just putting forward two possible states.

But, it isn't that hard to expand between stars, at least if you aren't sending warm life. And, as I have noted, we know how to build warm life from scratch.

This implies that technological civilizations either burn out or engulf the universe. Admittedly, Sawyer put forward the position that all technological civilizations turn inward and exist inside a computer-simulated utopia.

I think it might be an aberration. But an aberration of speed.

Robot factories that can build the robots in the factory with minimal supervision exist, I think.

There are plans for robots that do 3-D printing of buildings.

Automation of factories and production is proceeding apace. There are tricky parts, but large (like, factory sized) van neumann machines, that require pre-processed materials, aren't that far fetched. Once the mining, processing and manufacturing is automated, you have a full-scale Van Neumann machine. Then you have to add in automated repair (read: replacement) mechanisms.

A Van Neumann machine isn't hard. A small one is.

Or human cloning?


DNA is just chemicals.

Here is one story along this path:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4104483.stm
I believe cell walls have been made out of non-living material, so the use of an egg wasn't needed. There is a bunch of machinery they stole here, but all I claimed was the DNA.

DNA computing builds DNA, then mixes it in a test tube, in order to solve computational problems.

I think this was the organism I was thinking of: (via google)
SO1, or Synthetic Organism 1.

I thought I read a stronger claim than this somewhere.

Nope, we don't understand it. We can still use it.

We have managed to clone species, without understanding how their DNA works. We don't need to understand how cellular life works, we only need to build a copy of a cell.

Because the Strong made claims that where too strong for the evidence. Possibly the WAP provides nothing more than useful cyclical reasoning: but it points out how that reasoning is useful, and doesn't carry it far beyond what is justified like the SAP does.

Bah, I worded that too finely.

Start with 'intelligent life spreads nearly as quickly as light' and 'intelligent life prevents intelligent life from evolving where it is'.

Then, the fact we can't see intelligent life isn't surprising. Being able to see other life, as an intelligent species, would be extremely unexpected.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.