Are We Alone in The Universe ?

  • 106 Replies
  • 23904 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« on: 22/10/2013 18:24:24 »
Are We Alone in The Universe ?

Are we, dear folks ?
Since there is more than billions and billions of galaxies out there , and much more maybe , it's pretty possible and logical to assume that some kind of life might have emerged on some planet out there, we do not know of  .

Maybe some advanced aliens out there "manufactured " us , human beigns , also , who knows ?

Our human reality might be just a kind of elaborate matrix or hologram , who knows .

Do tell me about just that , please , i am serious , thanks , appreciate indeed .

Cheers .


The Secret Evidence We Are Not Alone :


http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/secret-evidence-we-are-not-alone/





« Last Edit: 30/10/2013 19:40:51 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4894
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #1 on: 22/10/2013 18:51:03 »
Probably not.

As for our being an artefact, why?
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #2 on: 22/10/2013 19:03:04 »
Probably not.

As for our being an artefact, why?

How can you be so sure about that then ?
Have you explored all the universe already , via some time travel machine maybe ?

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #3 on: 22/10/2013 19:57:07 »
The funny thing is that i asked a friend of mine the same above mentioned question of this thread , and guess what he replied :
"Are we alone on earth?, Are we the one and only truely intelligent beings on earth  ? "
He added : i am not referring to any of the other known  living organisms on earth ...

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #4 on: 23/10/2013 09:01:26 »
It is dangerous to extrapolate from a sample size of one.

Either way, the two alternatives, alone or not alone, are amazing to contemplate.
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6321
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #5 on: 23/10/2013 12:29:57 »
It is dangerous to extrapolate from a sample size of one.
Absolutely.
One could think of Earth as "average", but among all the earth-like planets that exist, somewhere one has to be first, and one has to be last.

It is believed that shortly after Earth was first capable of supporting life, then life in fact developed.  This might indicate that any planet like Earth (which we would have to assume there are others) would also develop life.  Or, it might indicate that everything came together at the right time.  Even if abiogenesis was inevitable, the jump from prokaryotes to eukaryotes was apparently slow, and may not always occur everywhere.

We can be amazed by the harmony of nature.  But, life could well have extinguished itself too. 

While Earth may have the only sentient multi-cellular beings in our solar system, perhaps more analysis of Mars, Europa, and Titan, as well as the many asteroids will reveal evidence of either current, or previous life elsewhere in our solar system.  Then its characteristics will help us understand life in general.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4894
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #6 on: 23/10/2013 14:42:02 »
It is dangerous to extrapolate from a sample size of one.

Which is why it is worth applying Bayesian statisics and asking what if anything is remarkable about your tiny sample. This leads quite nicely to the Drake equation which suggests (a) there is a nonzero probability that something we might call life either exists, may have existed, or will exist somewhere else in the universe and (b) we are most unlikely to find it. Such cautious statistical analysis is a long way from the Goldilocks or anthropocentric extrapolation, even if conclusion (b) is indistinguishable from the Goldilocks result! 
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline AndroidNeox

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 258
    • View Profile
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #7 on: 23/10/2013 23:00:28 »
Personally, I find the idea that Earth is the only home of life to be unlikely. Your suggestion that we could exist as nothing but a Matrix-like simulation is untestable (unless you could find a bug in the system). Really, we know information exists but we can't prove anything else (see Wheeler's "It from bit").

*

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6321
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #8 on: 24/10/2013 03:13:11 »
Your suggestion that we could exist as nothing but a Matrix-like simulation is untestable (unless you could find a bug in the system).
It would take an enormous amount of computing power to simulate 7 billion people, and about 20 billion chickens, and all the other creatures. 

Of course, if one looks at life through the eyes of a single person, then one only really ever sees at most a thousand or so people at at time.

Then one would have to ask to what end we are in this incalculable simulation.  Perhaps like an ant farm, but still the effort to manage it would be extraordinary. 

I think the same would go for having some magical figure controlling every aspect of our lives, and listening to billions of prayers a day.

As far as we can tell, the other planets in our solar system do just fine without "life".  And, even Earth could exist quite fine without humanity.

We may well be just an accidental coalition of amines and hydrocarbons that somehow started catalyzing their own regeneration.

*

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1505
    • View Profile
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #9 on: 25/10/2013 20:13:00 »
I expect we'll have evidence of life on another planet in another star system within the next couple of decades, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if it happened before 2020. Finding intelligent life on our own level will be a lot less likely, but again I think it'll be out there somewhere and we may get a signal from it some day. Perhaps we'll meet up with some of them when our galaxy merges with M31 (though meeting directly could be lethal for all involved due to unfamiliar bacteria and their alien equivalents).

*

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6321
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #10 on: 26/10/2013 06:53:54 »
If we find a planet in the Goldilocks zone, with an oxygen rich atmosphere, we could start beaming continuous radio signals in that direction.  Perhaps alternately broadcasting in AM, FM, and binary pulses, all either in multi-frequency, or variable frequencies.

If the other planet either knew of our existence, or happened to be tuned in this direction, they might pick up the signal. 

Still, if the planet was 100 light years away, it would take about 2 centuries to exchange a simple "Hello".

Could we design a probe capable of enduring for a million year trip, or so, just to check it out?

Of the 300 billion stars in the Milky Way, we might not have to wait for Andromeda to possibly stir the pot after our sun likely expands to the red giant phase.

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #11 on: 28/10/2013 10:10:13 »
It is dangerous to extrapolate from a sample size of one.
Which is why it is worth applying Bayesian statisics and asking what if anything is remarkable about your tiny sample.
When we do this we discover we lack the knowledge, currently, to answer that question for several key issues.

This leads quite nicely to the Drake equation which suggests (a) there is a nonzero probability that something we might call life either exists, may have existed, or will exist somewhere else in the universe
The Drake equation is generally misunderstood and misapplied. Frank Drake introduced the equation as an agenda for a meeting on extra-terrestrial intelligence held at the Green Bank observatory in the early 1960s. He did not intend it as a serious means of estimating the number of ET civilisations. Later he seems to have forgotten his own intentions and readily made such estimates with it.

The equation only generates a non-zero probability if one arbitrarily introduces non-zero terms in all of the functions within the equation. At present we lack the data to this with full confidence.

(b) we are most unlikely to find it.
This is not the case if you take the more ebullient numbers proposed by some researchers. Nor is it the case if you accept the improvements to be expected from technological advances in our ability to detect life forms elsewhere. So, this is not a conclusion we can form from proper application of Drake.

Such cautious statistical analysis is a long way from the Goldilocks or anthropocentric extrapolation, even if conclusion (b) is indistinguishable from the Goldilocks result! 
Since the use of the Drake equation implicitly involves identification of Goldilocks zones I fail to see how you can make this assertion.
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4894
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #12 on: 28/10/2013 11:11:30 »
My misappropriation of Goldilocks as being "just right" - i.e. anthropocentric - as distinct from "good enough" to support a selfreplicating organism.

I would be extremely surprised if there was nowhere else in the universe with some kind of green slime or uber-Klingon in residence. I would be (extremely)2 surprised if it ever made contact with homo sapiens. And given what hom sap did to the dodo, and even to tribes of its own species, the prospects for a joyous outcome to such a meeting are not hopeful anyway.   
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #13 on: 28/10/2013 11:42:54 »
My point is that what would or would not surprise you (or any of us) has little foundation, since our knowledge is currently inadequate in too many areas. i.e, back to my original point about extrapolating from a sample size of one.
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4894
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #14 on: 28/10/2013 22:36:54 »
Hold on! The sample size is at least a dozen planetary objects (i.e. including large moons) , and thousands of smaller chunks of rock, in the solar system, of which only one is known to support life and only two others (Mars and Europa) might have or have had the capability of doing so - assuming that life involves selfreplicating systems that transpire water. 

Now given the very small range of orbital radii around any given star, within which water will remain liquid, and the minimum size of planet needed to retain water in its atmosphere, it's unlikely that any star will have more than one Earthlike planet in the right orbit. So we are beginning to put some real numbers into Drake. We need a star of similar age and composition to the sun to provide a reasonably stable energy input without too much ionising radiation, and since that pretty much defines the mass range of the candidate star, we can begin counting candidates.

It is sensible to double the actual number of candidate stars on the grounds that we know of at least one moon  that probably contains liquid water on account of its internal heat and suitable size.

In other words we really have enough knowledge of the conditions required to sustain anything we might call life, and of the distribution of star types  at least within a few galaxies (which we may as well assume to be typical) to set an upper limit on the probability of life existing elsewhere. Hence my opinion that it is nonzero but exceedingly unlikely to be found. 
« Last Edit: 28/10/2013 22:38:29 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline SimpleEngineer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 117
    • View Profile
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #15 on: 29/10/2013 08:55:43 »
I think basing any of the guesswork around the possibility of life outside the constraints of a planet like, or similar to the earth on the basis of how life developed here is a little arrogant on our part. We dont understand life, we dont even have an idea WHY things that we call life happened to form..

Yes, we can go into a primordial soup state and say that somehow long chain hydrocarbons began to separate the outside from the inside (definately the first step towards life in my opinion).. We do understand HOW the hydrocarbons did this, (hydrophilic and hydrophobic tendancies) we can even do some damn good guess work on where the hydrocarbons came from.. but between the step of inside/outside separation where did the drive come from for the little protocell structures to actually take in energy, and reproduce.. we can say that it may have been happenstance, that these protocells had excess energy and needed something to do with it, so they reproduced without really knowing what it was doing..  at some point a driving force appears that makes the protocells WANT to reproduce, WANT to produce energy, WANT to get better at doing things.. (unless the belief is of accidental evolution) where the transition went from protocells getting energy from the sun to protocells 'eating' each other isa probably better understood, but the driving force behind it is still not clear..

Some say that the mitochondria (not mitichloriants for Jedi's) is actually a lifeform in itself and provides the driving force for life, but how did these structures develop? I find it hard to rule out both that, some intervention at any point in that cycle.. or that this cycle is not driven by natural forces.

There are lots of IF's in the discussion, but I dont believe we have the full understanding of 'life' or the driving forces to say that this could not happen in different circumstances, whether this could happen in a gaseous state, or under supercritical conditions, (evidence is starting to show it very may well be able to with extremophiles).

It wouldnt take too much imagination to see that maybe there are beings as big as planets out there, compensating for much lower pressures, having just formed a segregated boundary and developed processes within that can be described as lifelike.

For me the chances of there not being anything else (at all) is incredibly remote, however, is there a chance of intelligent beings out there?, is another thing entirely. And I am sure if they knew we were here, they would be as excited as we would be to find others out there.

*

Offline Ophiolite

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 718
    • View Profile
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #16 on: 29/10/2013 12:07:44 »
Hold on! The sample size is at least a dozen planetary objects (i.e. including large moons) , and thousands of smaller chunks of rock, in the solar system, of which only one is known to support life and only two others (Mars and Europa) might have or have had the capability of doing so - assuming that life involves selfreplicating systems that transpire water. 
The sample referred to is the the one known existence of life. We do not have adequate information on the other potential sites in the solar system. It is entirely possible Venus was capable of supporting life initially before runaway greenhouse conditions kicked in. Titan has not been ruled out. Enceladus is now considered in a similar category to Europa. Bottom line: we simply do not know.

Now given the very small range of orbital radii around any given star, within which water will remain liquid, and the minimum size of planet needed to retain water in its atmosphere, it's unlikely that any star will have more than one Earthlike planet in the right orbit.
Simulations suggest one is likely and two are entirely possible, even taking into account a shifting HZ as the star evolves.

So we are beginning to put some real numbers into Drake. We need a star of similar age and composition to the sun to provide a reasonably stable energy input without too much ionising radiation, and since that pretty much defines the mass range of the candidate star, we can begin counting candidates.
There are plausible arguments in favour of much cooler stars than the sun - not so many for anything hotter than a G-type. But there are also major issues about proximity to the galactic centre and time spent outside of the spiral arms. The picture is much more complicated than the one you present.

That said, we are, as you suggest, able to apply meaningful numbers to potential habitable planets. The same simply cannot be said of the other terms in the equation. Opinions, based upon careful consideration of the available facts, not upon assumptions, lead to a range of assessments as to the probability of abiogenesis. On the one hand we have the optimistic view of Christian de Duve, Nobel laureate, whose book The Cosmic Imperative explains why he sees life as inevitable and abundant. On the other hand is the pessimism of Jacques Monod, another Nobel laureate, who believed life was a freak accident, unique to Earth.

The only thing I can say with confidence is that we are ignorant.

 
Observe; collate; conjecture; analyse; hypothesise; test; validate; theorise. Repeat until complete.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4894
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #17 on: 29/10/2013 15:08:50 »
The suggestion that a freak accident could only occur in one place in the universe is somewhat baffling. There is always a cause for every effect, and we only ascribe "freak" to effects if the cause was a priori improbable or unconsidered. But once we have sorted out the cause of an accident it always becomes clear that the consequences were inevitable from the starting conditions. So given a very large universe and a very long time, we only need to see the starting conditions (or something similar) once more to answer the question. 

It might be argued that abiogenesis resulted from a primal cause via an inherently chaotic pathway, but however random a system, the probability of it being is the same state twice is nonzero. 

So my opinion is inevitable (it's happened at least once, so p=1 somewhere) but not very abundant.
« Last Edit: 29/10/2013 15:11:32 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #18 on: 29/10/2013 17:44:19 »
Are we alone ...on earth ?
This is a serious question though , no kidding .

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4894
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #19 on: 29/10/2013 19:17:23 »
No. I have a girlfriend, a dog, and numerous parasites, commensals, symbionts, gut flora, and all the other biological stuff that makes life possible and interesting. What more could anyone want or imagine? An invisible Klingon?
« Last Edit: 29/10/2013 19:21:51 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #20 on: 29/10/2013 20:13:48 »
No. I have a girlfriend, a dog, and numerous parasites, commensals, symbionts, gut flora, and all the other biological stuff that makes life possible and interesting. What more could anyone want or imagine? An invisible Klingon?

haha
There are some immaterial beings as conscious and as intelligent as we are , and even more so than ourselves, as human beings , out there , on earth, science cannot , per definition, approach as such : stuff like that: believe it or not , i don't care  .
Instead of searching for aliens in outer-space , one should first try to find out about those immaterial 'aliens " on earth ...


*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #21 on: 30/10/2013 19:39:47 »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4894
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #22 on: 30/10/2013 19:42:09 »
So which are you going with: immaterial beings or little green men in flying saucers?
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #23 on: 30/10/2013 20:30:59 »
Quote
So which are you going with: immaterial beings or little green men in flying saucers?

haha
I am inclined to go for the firsts .
I don't think there are any outer-space aliens out there , i dunno .

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4894
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #24 on: 30/10/2013 22:42:17 »
Hey! Progress! You have answered a question! Let's keep this moving on....

You say the world is populated with immaterial beings. What do they do that makes you think they exist? 
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Kryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 641
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #25 on: 06/11/2013 21:08:37 »
Hey! Progress! You have answered a question! Let's keep this moving on....

You say the world is populated with immaterial beings. What do they do that makes you think they exist? 

I too am interested in seeing his answer to this question.
----
Jesus is coming soon. Be prepared for him.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #26 on: 07/11/2013 18:26:31 »
Quote
Hey! Progress! You have answered a question! Let's keep this moving on....

You say the world is populated with immaterial beings. What do they do that makes you think they exist?.


I too am interested in seeing his answer to this question.

I am not afraid   haha of any  mainstream  materialist 'scientific world view "'s censorship or inquisitions to dare to say that there are indeed spiritual immaterial beings on earth out there , even though i cannot prove their existence ,as i cannot prove the existence of God either = just  belief assumptions of mine thus .
Since the mainstream materialist "scientific world view " assumes , just a materialist belief core assumption thus , that reality as a whole is just material or physical , then, it's pretty obvious that that "scientific world view " would a-priori reject those belief assumptions of mine as expressed above thus .

But , science proper thus (without materialism thus ) cannot , per definition, neither prove nor disprove  neither my belief in the existence of God nor my belief in the existence of those immaterial or spiritual beings on earth = that's 'somehting " that's both outside of science's realm and outside of science's jurisdiction as well thus .

P.S.: Those above mentioned belief assumptions of mine are not just based on religious authority , but also on my own personal experiences on the subject, among other factors as well  .
Religion , or just my faith in this case , that does stimulate experience , personal experience ,for example,  before science ever learned to do so thus .
Even science itself did originate from the very epistemology of the holy book i do believe in also: see my own thread on the same subject  : science as a religious duty , a form of worship of God , in order to try to find out about the secrets and signs of God both within and without .
Long story thus i am not gonna elaborate any further on .
« Last Edit: 07/11/2013 18:33:29 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline SimpleEngineer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 117
    • View Profile
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #27 on: 08/11/2013 09:05:00 »

I am not afraid   haha of any  mainstream  materialist 'scientific world view "'s censorship or inquisitions to dare to say that there are indeed spiritual immaterial beings on earth out there , even though i cannot prove their existence ,as i cannot prove the existence of God either = just  belief assumptions of mine thus .
Since the mainstream materialist "scientific world view " assumes , just a materialist belief core assumption thus , that reality as a whole is just material or physical , then, it's pretty obvious that that "scientific world view " would a-priori reject those belief assumptions of mine as expressed above thus .

But , science proper thus (without materialism thus ) cannot , per definition, neither prove nor disprove  neither my belief in the existence of God nor my belief in the existence of those immaterial or spiritual beings on earth = that's 'somehting " that's both outside of science's realm and outside of science's jurisdiction as well thus .

P.S.: Those above mentioned belief assumptions of mine are not just based on religious authority , but also on my own personal experiences on the subject, among other factors as well  .
Religion , or just my faith in this case , that does stimulate experience , personal experience ,for example,  before science ever learned to do so thus .
Even science itself did originate from the very epistemology of the holy book i do believe in also: see my own thread on the same subject  : science as a religious duty , a form of worship of God , in order to try to find out about the secrets and signs of God both within and without .
Long story thus i am not gonna elaborate any further on .

You didn't answer the question.. what do they do that makes you think they exist? We are not asking for proof, just examples of things that cannot be explained by what you call materialism?

You are arguing yourself in circles. You accuse science of having a negative belief, and use your own negative belief as a counter argument. Science may never prove or disprove the existence of the immaterial, but it may find the evidence for it that you so obviously need to make your arguments hold water. It may very well be outside the possibility of science to actually investigate the immaterial, but until there's some immaterial evidence there is no current boundary for science to reach and so it will will keep discovering the material world until it finds where it cannot go further.. Your belief is not affected by the progress of science.. unless it explains what you call 'proof' of your belief to be a false belief..

You are simply my sir, afraid of being proven to have lived your life on a lie. And want to stop everyone else from finding out.   

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4894
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #28 on: 08/11/2013 10:50:13 »
Quote
I am not afraid....

so why not just answer the very simple question instead of blathering on about what you think I might think.

What is it that these immaterial beings do that makes you think they exist?
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #29 on: 08/11/2013 17:37:05 »
Just try to read what i said carefully then, folks .
Any beliefs for that matter are , per definition, unscientific ,either the religious beliefs or the secular ones thus,  but, they are not all necessarily false , as materialism is .
They just happen to be both outside of science's realm and outside of science's jurisdiction as well , when science will be less dogmatic and more scientific by rejecting materialism in science that has been taken for granted as the "scientific world view " for so long now , without question  .
Thanks , appreciate indeed.
Cheers.

*

Offline Kryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 641
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #30 on: 08/11/2013 21:53:45 »
Did you have an experience with a haunting of some sort? I'm actually rather interested in such things (and anything related to spirits or paranormal), so I'd welcome any stories you have on those matters.

Even though I agree that one can believe in unexplained things without a need for scientific proof of them, I should also point out that one should have a good reason to believe in such things. If I saw a Bigfoot firsthand, then I would have a legitimate reason to believe in them. However, if I believed in something solely because I was taught to believe in it, then the rationality of that belief becomes questionable.
----
Jesus is coming soon. Be prepared for him.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #31 on: 09/11/2013 18:29:55 »
Did you have an experience with a haunting of some sort? I'm actually rather interested in such things (and anything related to spirits or paranormal), so I'd welcome any stories you have on those matters.

Even though I agree that one can believe in unexplained things without a need for scientific proof of them, I should also point out that one should have a good reason to believe in such things. If I saw a Bigfoot firsthand, then I would have a legitimate reason to believe in them. However, if I believed in something solely because I was taught to believe in it, then the rationality of that belief becomes questionable.

Most people do miss the fact that there are false and true beliefs indeed out there :
The beliefs in the tooth fairy , Sint Claus ...are obviously false .
But,science can indeed only wish to approach those true beliefs out there .
Some true beliefs are based not just on authority , but also on personal experiences , even though there are cases of alleged "paranormal " experiences that can turn out to be illusions that might be generated by epilepsy and the sort , by brain disorder , brain damage ....( There is no such a thing such as the paranormal in fact , just made-up by man semantics : the so-called paranormal, or rather just the real one ,  is normal : makes part of reality as a whole : that's just the non-physical or non-material side of reality : the paranormal label is just the materialist way of dismissing what lies beyond the false materialist version of reality, and hence beyond the false materialist mainstream "scientific world view " thus .).
In my case , and in the case of many people i did investigate in many ways , people who did experience similar personal experiences to mine i did try to put under harsh and uncompromised methodic scrutiny , in my case , i did have some way too personal encounters with some spiritual beings whose short nasty and unpleasant (an understatement ) control over me , in ways i can hardly describe or just talk about , whose control over me was undone via the help of well informed and well experienced people in the field : long story thus , i might tell you all about another day thus : a personal nasty terrible and too-real -to-me-not-to-be-true story i prefer to forget about , for the time being  at least  , for obvious reasons thus .

In short :

Folks :

The core issue here is , once again , as follows :

We shouldn't try to ossify science as to hold it imprisonned within a certain false conception of nature , as it has been the case since the 19th century at least thus .
Science that's a kind of an effective and unparalleled adventurer like no other that should be completly free in its inquiry in relation to reality whatever the nature of which   might turn out to be .
So, to keep science confined to just  a certain conception of nature is like pretending that we do already know what the nature of reality is , and it is more like dictating to an adeventurer such as science what specific part of reality it must explore , and no other .
Science that's still a relatively young effective and unparalleled adventurer like no other that  cannot pretend to know the nature of reality as a whole already , an adventurer that must be totally free in  exploring reality , or just the parts of reality it can dela with empirically , free in exploring reality , whatever the latter might turn out to be thus .
The mainstream materialist conception of nature , and hence the 'scientific world view " , just hold back science and restrict its scope ,realm ,reach and jurisdiction , by keeping science imprisonned within the materialist version of reality that's obviously false.
The materialist reductionist naturalist conception of nature , in the sense that reality is just material or physical , is false , and hence the materialist 'scientific world view " is false also .
Reality is thus not just physical or material ,which means that all physical sciences for that matter must undergo a revolutionary and radical change , in order to be able to deal with the missing part of reality which has been labeled by the materialist false "scientific world view " as being non-existent , or as being just physical or material ,if all physical sciences want to fully deserve being called sciences at least : science thus has no choice but to include the missing part of reality in its attempts to try to describe , explain or understand reality as a whole .
Science must be totally free to explore reality , whatever the latter might turn out to be , instead of being held captive within a particular conception of nature, a false one at that  .
Science whose nature is to try to go beyond what it has already revealed , including beyond the laws of physics themselves .
There might be some more fundamental processes or whatever that might be underlying the laws of physics themselves thus , who knows ? and that might turn out to be totally different from any human notion of law that's just a human projection .
No wonder that modern physics do speak in terms of fields , for example : electro-magnetic and other fields thus : even the most basic particules are a matter of waves and mass ...
Do the maths then .

Cheers.
« Last Edit: 09/11/2013 18:33:12 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #32 on: 10/11/2013 16:24:00 »
Folks :

That i allegedly was "possessed " haha by some "supernatural " spirits was just a test   you might have been deceived by  and failed in  , since you might have been thinking that anyone such as myself who would be against the mainstream materialist " scientific world view " must turn out to be some sort of a schizophrenic patient of some sort haha .
Congratulations.
« Last Edit: 10/11/2013 16:26:57 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline SimpleEngineer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 117
    • View Profile
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #33 on: 11/11/2013 08:56:44 »
Test or not, if it were the case, science would show a great interest in you, as solid evidence of something that is not understood.

What you miss completely from your waffling and indignation is that science would LOVE to find an immaterial, a sentience that makes the world happen.. as it would make their lives a LOT easier.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4894
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #34 on: 11/11/2013 09:12:36 »
Well it's been nearly two weeks since I asked the question, and no answer has been given in several pages of beautifully expressed argument, so we must assume that DQ has no evidence of the existence of immaterial beings.

This makes a tenuous bridge between his world and the one that the rest of us inhabit.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Kryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 641
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #35 on: 11/11/2013 23:00:04 »
So then, were you joking when you said you have personal experience with immaterial beings on the whole? If so, what has lead you to believe in their existence? And no, quite sane people can hold unorthodox views. I never assumed you to be mentally ill.
----
Jesus is coming soon. Be prepared for him.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #36 on: 14/11/2013 20:31:37 »
So then, were you joking when you said you have personal experience with immaterial beings on the whole? If so, what has lead you to believe in their existence?

Yes , indeed : it was just a test, in the above mentioned sense thus  .
I do believe in the existence of immaterial beings on earth and elsewehere , and in much more , as  parts of my whole belief system , the latter is  not just based on authority thus , but also on the personal experiences of many people i have been having contact with ,whose allegations i did put under uncompromised scrutiny .

Besides, my own belief or religion as a whole does have its  own core transcendent   and other rationale and logic ...as well i am relatively convinced by .

My own religion which has been considering reason, logic , the seeking of knowledge in the broader sense , work, personal experience , experience period , constant search , science ...as religious duties , as forms of worship of God , in order to find out about the secrets and signs of God both within and without , in order to get closer to ...God .

No wonder that the scientific method or science itself did originate from the very epistemology thus of the holy book i do believe in .

Quote
And no, quite sane people can hold unorthodox views. I never assumed you to be mentally ill.

Indeed , thanks .
Only really sane people can say the above indeed.
« Last Edit: 14/11/2013 20:34:13 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline Kryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 641
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #37 on: 15/11/2013 06:55:13 »
I think you said you were Arab, right? Putting the pieces together, I'm guessing that you are a Muslim and that the spiritual beings you speak of are angels and/or djinni. There's nothing wrong with believing in such beings, but when you propose on a science discussion board that these beings exist, then surely you must expect that the members here are going to ask for evidence (or at least a good logical argument) to back up your claims.
----
Jesus is coming soon. Be prepared for him.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #38 on: 15/11/2013 18:30:03 »
I think you said you were Arab, right? Putting the pieces together, I'm guessing that you are a Muslim and that the spiritual beings you speak of are angels and/or djinni. There's nothing wrong with believing in such beings, but when you propose on a science discussion board that these beings exist, then surely you must expect that the members here are going to ask for evidence (or at least a good logical argument) to back up your claims.
[/quote]

Right : when science will stop assuming that reality as a whole is just material or physical , then and only then , science might be able to expand its realm , reach and jurisdiction as to include the missing part of reality it can deal with empirically .

P.S.: My own belief assumptions are , per definition, unscientific , but they are not necessarily false , as materialism is, materialism that has been making science assume that reality as a whole is just material or physical thus , while making people take that for granted as the "scientific world view " as a result  .

*

Offline Kryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 641
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #39 on: 16/11/2013 04:27:46 »
If immaterial things and/or beings are detectable, then in principle they can be tested for by science. In such a case, such concepts can only be discounted if the theories about their existence can be proven false.

If immaterial things and/or beings are not detectable, then science cannot be applied to them and science should be indifferent as to whether they exist or not. Why should (or rather, how could) science care about things that it can neither confirm nor deny?
----
Jesus is coming soon. Be prepared for him.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #40 on: 16/11/2013 17:56:56 »
If immaterial things and/or beings are detectable, then in principle they can be tested for by science. In such a case, such concepts can only be discounted if the theories about their existence can be proven false.

If immaterial things and/or beings are not detectable, then science cannot be applied to them and science should be indifferent as to whether they exist or not. Why should (or rather, how could) science care about things that it can neither confirm nor deny?
[/quote]

Either way , it all comes down or up haha to  , depends on one's view on the subject considering the nature of reality as a whole thus , it all comes down to the fact that reality as a whole is not just material or physical, and hence the mainstream 'scientific world view " is ...false , which does mean that reality as a whole is not just material or physical , and the mental or the non-physical are irreducible to the physical .
In other words :
The mainstream materialist reductionist naturalist  neo-Darwinian conception of nature  is false  , and hence the  mainstream 'scientific world view " is also false , and must be rejected , and must be replaced by a more or less valid non-reductionist naturalist conception of nature that must include the mental as being non-reducible to the physical .

But , if you want to hear my own point of view regarding the non-reductionist naturalist conception of nature as a potentially "valid " alternative to materialism in science , then, i must say that it is also , obviously , ...false , simply because nature cannot "generate " life , the mind or the rest of the non-physical out there,no way  .

In short :

Any naturalist  attempts in science , eiher the materialist reductionist ones or the naturalist non-reductionist ones , cannot explain or account for how the mental or the non-physical came to exist, in the first place to begin with  .

*

Offline Kryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 641
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #41 on: 16/11/2013 23:53:53 »
So now you are saying that life is non-physical? You do realize that we have a good understanding of the basic processes that make something alive. Look at a living cell. Which part of that cell's function requires a supernatural explanation?
----
Jesus is coming soon. Be prepared for him.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #42 on: 17/11/2013 18:48:42 »
So now you are saying that life is non-physical? You do realize that we have a good understanding of the basic processes that make something alive. Look at a living cell. Which part of that cell's function requires a supernatural explanation?
[/quote]

All i am saying is that life cannot be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry alone ., let alone its origins .
Otherwise , try to explain to me how life did emerge from the dead matter way back to the so-called original soup.

How could sentient mental physical life rise from just physics and chemistry ?

When one wants to explain life , one should try to explain it as a whole package : body and mind, not just take the physical body as the whole thing , by reducing the mental to the physical, it cannot be reduced to  .

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4894
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #43 on: 17/11/2013 23:46:41 »
Quote
All i am saying is that life cannot be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry alone

Why not?

The fact that I can't climb Everest, and that nobody else had until 1953, doesn't mean that it couldn't be done. On the other hand we do have "unprovability theorems" in various branches of mathematics. So if you want to make a categorical statement of impossibility in a science forum, I expect you to back it up with more than a mere assertion.   
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Kryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 641
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #44 on: 18/11/2013 03:53:09 »
All i am saying is that life cannot be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry alone .

You still didn't address my question. A single-celled organism is a living thing. If physics and chemistry alone cannot explain its functions, then there must be one or more functions of that cell that require an explanation outside of physics and chemistry. So I ask once again, what aspects of a cell's function require an explanation outside of physics and chemistry?

Quote
Otherwise , try to explain to me how life did emerge from the dead matter way back to the so-called original soup.

That sounds like a repackaging of the "God of the gaps" fallacy. "We don't know how dead matter can become life, therefore something supernatural created life". It's just another argument from ignorance.
----
Jesus is coming soon. Be prepared for him.

*

Offline SimpleEngineer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 117
    • View Profile
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #45 on: 18/11/2013 09:46:46 »
So now you are saying that life is non-physical? You do realize that we have a good understanding of the basic processes that make something alive. Look at a living cell. Which part of that cell's function requires a supernatural explanation?

All i am saying is that life cannot be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry alone ., let alone its origins .
Otherwise , try to explain to me how life did emerge from the dead matter way back to the so-called original soup.

How could sentient mental physical life rise from just physics and chemistry ?

When one wants to explain life , one should try to explain it as a whole package : body and mind, not just take the physical body as the whole thing , by reducing the mental to the physical, it cannot be reduced to  .
[/quote]

How many fallacious and misleading statements do you want to make?

Your argument from personal incredulity is plain, and shifting the burden of proof is a typical reaction when you know you are fighting a losing battle.

You play with your circular arguments, without once questioning the conclusion you are arguing from. WE have tried to meet you with false compromises, yet you stick to your guns with no proof or evidence of any kind. You inflate the conflict about the few subjects you have chosen as you immaterial evidence regardless of having no evidence excpet the lack of evidence


*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #46 on: 18/11/2013 17:23:48 »
Quote
All i am saying is that life cannot be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry alone

Why not?

The fact that I can't climb Everest, and that nobody else had until 1953, doesn't mean that it couldn't be done. On the other hand we do have "unprovability theorems" in various branches of mathematics. So if you want to make a categorical statement of impossibility in a science forum, I expect you to back it up with more than a mere assertion.
[/quote]

Just tell me then how life emerged from the dead matter then in the so-called original soup , genius  ?
Life that's not just a matter of physics and chemistry .
Nobody has an answer to that question , and nobody will , simply because physics and chemistry alone cannot account for life .
How did nature "generate " the conscious life then ?

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #47 on: 18/11/2013 17:34:21 »
All i am saying is that life cannot be explained just in terms of physics and chemistry alone .

You still didn't address my question. A single-celled organism is a living thing. If physics and chemistry alone cannot explain its functions, then there must be one or more functions of that cell that require an explanation outside of physics and chemistry. So I ask once again, what aspects of a cell's function require an explanation outside of physics and chemistry?

My question was :

How did life emerge from the dead matter in the so-called original soup ?

How physics and chemistry alone can account for the sentient life ?

Quote
Quote
Otherwise , try to explain to me how life did emerge from the dead matter way back to the so-called original soup.

That sounds like a repackaging of the "God of the gaps" fallacy. "We don't know how dead matter can become life, therefore something supernatural created life". It's just another argument from ignorance.

I did not say that : all i was saying is that physics and chemistry alone cannot account for life , let alone its origins or evolution , since reality as a whole , including life thus ,including evolution,  is not just material or physical , and therefore physics and chenistry alone can never be able to account for life or consciousness ... not now , not tomorrow or ever , simply because life as a whole , like  reality as a whole , is not just physical or material .

Trying to exlain life just in terms of physics and chemistry is materialism of the gaps in fact that reduces life or reality as a whole to just material physical biological processes, just in order to "validate " materialism , in vain  .

Your "promissory messianic materialism ", in the sense that science under materialism will be able to explain how life did emerge from the dead matter someday is just that , simply because life is not just material or physical,as reality as a whole is not , unlike what materialism wanna make you believe they are  .

Get that ? Think about it .

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #48 on: 18/11/2013 17:42:41 »
Folks :

Physics and chemistry alone can never be able to explain or account for sentient life , they just try to describe it physically .
Physics and chemistry alone cannot account for sentient life thus , simply because reality as a whole , including life , is not just material or physical , as the false materialism has been assuming it to be , and hence as the false 'scientific world view " has been doing all along , since the 19th century at least .

Stop your silly promissory messianic materialist non-sense then = science under materialism will never be able to explain  sentient  life just in terms of physics and chemistry .

Solution ?

All sciences must reject the false materialist meta-paradigm in science regarding the nature of reality  , and hence their false   materialist 'scientific world view " , by including the mental that's irreducible to the physical .

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4894
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: Are We Alone in The Universe ?
« Reply #49 on: 18/11/2013 17:43:44 »
You must acquire a little humility if you wish to be taken seriously by scientists. "I don't know" is a perfectly reasonable answer to your first question, and "please define consciousness" is a reasonable response to the second, but your statement that "nobody will..." is laughably arrogant.

You would do well to study the writings of Dunning and Kruger to discover why nobody takes your unfounded assertions seriously. We've seen it all before, many times, and we are not impressed.

You can't escape the fact that living things have evolved, and since (despite being asked several times) you haven't presented any plausible evidence of supernatural intervention, we must assume that they did so according to the natural laws of physics and chemistry. Given time, we may be able to explain how.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance