| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/04/2011 06:25:29 AM · #1076 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Switch the question to something a little less charged.
Is there life elsewhere in the universe?
I know people who say there is bound to be life on other planets, though we have no evidence of it. Their argument is philosophical ("We have life here. The universe is big. There is bound to be life elsewhere.") I know people who say there is no life elsewhere and point to the fact we have no evidence of it. Once evidence arises, they will change their mind. There may be a third group which says, "I do not know." and honestly means it. They don't have a hunch, they don't want to have a hunch.
Are any of these positions unreasonable? |
The answers "yes" and "no" are unreasonable. There is a probability factor between the two, which is increasing as we discover more and more of the known building blocks that appear to be in place for life elsewhere.
For example:
//www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12354390
It is possible to estimate intelligently a probability factor - though computing more complicated questions such as the number of advanced civilisations in the universe relies heavily upon conjecture.
|
|
|
|
02/04/2011 11:07:51 AM · #1077 |
I appreciate your comments Matthew, but I will tell you to me they look to be completely part and parcel of your worldview. You are using your baseline assumptions to adjudicate between the competing notings. That's not bad, in fact it's universal, but it is what it is. My own worldview, in many ways, is similar, but it has another dimension which may alter some of the answers to your examples. Still, the process we use is identical.
For your second post, we all know that you can rarely answer something with a definitive "yes" or "no", but in practicality we make those choices and lives our lives as if the answer were definitive. The point of the exercise, again, was to show that it can be reasonable to make decisions about things based on little data if necessary. I'm not sure how it looks in real life to base your decision on a 92% likelihood versus an 88% likelihood of something. But I do know what it looks like when it's a 92% likelihood versus 12%. |
|
|
|
02/04/2011 01:38:16 PM · #1078 |
It seems to me that what you are attempting to do is to equate your religious faith with every other generally unquantifiable proposition there is. You seem to want us to accept that because there is uncertainty, every proposition is as good as every other proposition. Hence, your insistence that an opinion on aliens and multiverses is as strong or weak as an opinion on the existence of god. Thus, your faith is grounded in reason.
This is of course untenable. Aliens and multiverses are at least somehow quantifiable, the former perhaps via known probabilities derived at from data such as the probable number and nature of planets in the galaxy, the latter by repeatable mathematical formulae encapsulated in a formal discipline.* The articles of your faith don't hold up to any kind of scrutiny. Your position is further crippled by the fact that your faith is defined by a narrow set of criteria (not just belief in gods), and whatever independent decisions you've made regarding its continuance are unalterably steeped in your culture, upbringing, personality, etc. These are not the metadata of rational scientific inquiry, a la an investigation of alien life, or the scrutiny of physics forumlae that suggest a more layered reality than the macro universe we observe. There is simply no reason to buy anything anyone says about there being good reasons to continue to have religious faith, especially when one tries to create some kind of harmonious triumvirate between faith, science, and worldviews.
* That the discipline is refuted by some scientists does not alter the fact that the formulae suggest its veracity, or that the "reasons" for continuing religious faith are utterly untestable in the same way. |
|
|
|
02/04/2011 02:21:02 PM · #1079 |
Naw, you are totally lost Louis. I'm not talking about that at all. I'm not even trying to justify specific beliefs, but rather the process in general. But your own obstinate adherenece to your worldview will never allow you to see.
I could easily derive some Drake equation for the probability of the existence of God because at the end of the day, the Drake equation is just guesses and you can easily steer the numbers to make it likely there is lots of life in the galaxy or none. So while the exercise for finding the probability of life in the universe is disguised in the cloak of something that looks mathematical, it is just speculation. If we did something similar for God, I'm sure you would reject it outright.
Message edited by author 2011-02-04 14:21:55. |
|
|
|
02/04/2011 03:05:52 PM · #1080 |
In the 2nd season of The Big Bang Theory, Howard modifies the Drake Equation to predict the likelihood of one of the group hooking up with a woman... To my mind it's a pretty useless equation since it is calculated based on guesses as to the value of the various parameters.
I'm a SciFi guy through-and-through, but it still stuns me that people can throw out conjecture like that with a straight face, as if the "results" somehow mean something. They don't.
R. |
|
|
|
02/04/2011 04:24:30 PM · #1081 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
In the 2nd season of The Big Bang Theory, Howard modifies the Drake Equation to predict the likelihood of one of the group hooking up with a woman... To my mind it's a pretty useless equation since it is calculated based on guesses as to the value of the various parameters.
I'm a SciFi guy through-and-through, but it still stuns me that people can throw out conjecture like that with a straight face, as if the "results" somehow mean something. They don't. |
Well, while the result is pretty much wholly conjecture at this point - because so many of the variables in the equation are essentially unknown - the value of something like the Drake equation is that it provides a framework for identifying what research would be needed to reduce the speculative nature of such an exercise.
For example, estimates as to the straight number of solar systems/planets has been highly refined over the last century (and almost always adjusted upwards).
Similarly the variable having to do with the number of planets available to theoretically support life was essentially wholly speculative when the equation was first formed, but as research continues it becomes less so. When the equation was first formulated, the known sample size was exactly 1 solar system (ours), or 8/9 planets if you prefer (and depending on whether you count poor Pluto as a planet). Now, though the data is still too small to make definitive probability statements, technological innovations have allowed us to identify hundreds of exoplanets and we are continually expanding the data set refining our technology to be able to detect smaller and smaller planets at further and further distances. Given time, we will almost certainly be able to come up with a decent estimate of the number of "sweet spot" planets that we should expect to find in the larger universe.
I agree with Bear, anyone who cites the Drake equation as if the currently formulated result actually means something doesn't understand the excessive width of the error bars at play. But in theory the Drake equation variables are empirically knowable, some are just unknown at the moment. I would be very interested to see Doc's posited "Drake equation for the probability of the existence for God" that shares the same characteristic. You could probably do it, but I don't think that believers would accept the validity of such an equation because it would exclude all the non-empirical variables that are often cited as being key reasons for belief.
Further, while I can imagine a "Drake equation for God," I don't see how you develop a similar equation for a dogmatic issue like "faith vs. works," since the very question itself is non-empirical.
|
|
|
|
02/04/2011 05:26:59 PM · #1082 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
For example, estimates as to the straight number of solar systems/planets has been highly refined over the last century (and almost always adjusted upwards). |
Do you mean highly "adjusted" rather than refined? We probably have very little idea how many stars support planets. We do now have evidence that such planets exist, but I'd be quite hesitant to say the number is "refined". Just pointing it out, because I find these conversations often give the scientific community huge benefits of the doubt that really should not be given. I also scoff a bit when people seem to note that coming up with any given information is at least "theoretically" possible and thus falls into a very much more valid category than information that can only be derived by logical inference.
fi = the fraction of planets that develop life that actually go on to develop intelligent life
Tell me how you are going to get at that number without making the Drake equation obsolete? I think that number is one in a trillion trillion trillion. Looks like we're out of luck... ;) What are you going to say back?
Originally posted by SP:
Further, while I can imagine a "Drake equation for God," I don't see how you develop a similar equation for a dogmatic issue like "faith vs. works," since the very question itself is non-empirical. |
Well, that's fine since I'm not the one requiring empiric evidence for every question that is worth asking. I agree you can't answer "fath vs. works" with a math equation!
Message edited by author 2011-02-04 17:34:05. |
|
|
|
02/04/2011 05:56:31 PM · #1083 |
NASA Finds Earth-Sized Planet In Habitable Zone
Originally posted by NASA Press Release:
Feb. 02, 2011 â€Â˘ RELEASE : 11-030
NASA Finds Earth-Size Planet Candidates In Habitable Zone, Six Planet System
WASHINGTON -- NASA's Kepler mission has discovered its first Earth-size planet candidates and its first candidates in the habitable zone, a region where liquid water could exist on a planet's surface. Five of the potential planets are near Earth-size and orbit in the habitable zone of smaller, cooler stars than our sun.
Candidates require follow-up observations to verify they are actual planets. Kepler also found six confirmed planets orbiting a sun-like star, Kepler-11. This is the largest group of transiting planets orbiting a single star yet discovered outside our solar system.
"In one generation we have gone from extraterrestrial planets being a mainstay of science fiction, to the present, where Kepler has helped turn science fiction into today's reality," said NASA Administrator Charles Bolden. "These discoveries underscore the importance of NASA's science missions, which consistently increase understanding of our place in the cosmos."
The discoveries are part of several hundred new planet candidates identified in new Kepler mission science data, released on Tuesday, Feb. 1. The findings increase the number of planet candidates identified by Kepler to-date to 1,235. Of these, 68 are approximately Earth-size; 288 are super-Earth-size; 662 are Neptune-size; 165 are the size of Jupiter and 19 are larger than Jupiter.
Of the 54 new planet candidates found in the habitable zone, five are near Earth-sized. The remaining 49 habitable zone candidates range from super-Earth size -- up to twice the size of Earth -- to larger than Jupiter.
The findings are based on the results of observations conducted May 12 to Sept. 17, 2009, of more than 156,000 stars in Kepler's field of view, which covers approximately 1/400 of the sky.
"The fact that we've found so many planet candidates in such a tiny fraction of the sky suggests there are countless planets orbiting sun-like stars in our galaxy," said William Borucki of NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif., the mission's science principal investigator. "We went from zero to 68 Earth-sized planet candidates and zero to 54 candidates in the habitable zone, some of which could have moons with liquid water." |
|
|
|
|
02/04/2011 06:33:11 PM · #1084 |
I'm aware of that stuff Paul and I think it's pretty cool. But I do think the proper terminology is to say our estimates are "adjusted" rather than "refined". Refined indicates we are adding more and more places of significance to the probability. Going from a 10% to an 80% chance is an adjustment. Going from 80% to 82% to 82.5% is a series of refinements. Make sense?
The article doesn't even speculate on a number though. "countless" isn't very helpful when you are putting it in an equation... |
|
|
|
02/05/2011 05:03:08 PM · #1085 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I appreciate your comments Matthew, but I will tell you to me they look to be completely part and parcel of your worldview. You are using your baseline assumptions to adjudicate between the competing notings. That's not bad, in fact it's universal, but it is what it is. My own worldview, in many ways, is similar, but it has another dimension which may alter some of the answers to your examples. Still, the process we use is identical. |
I don't understand. Maybe tell me what our baseline difference is? You are more willing than me too accept that supernatural things might happen despite the absence of evidence for them? So you wouldn't be too dismissive of the rhino horn?
I know that you have a subjective belief in Christianity, but being an intelligent and well educated person surely you can acknowledge that other religions have equally compelling (yet sometimes conflicting) tenets?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
For your second post, we all know that you can rarely answer something with a definitive "yes" or "no", but in practicality we make those choices and lives our lives as if the answer were definitive. The point of the exercise, again, was to show that it can be reasonable to make decisions about things based on little data if necessary. I'm not sure how it looks in real life to base your decision on a 92% likelihood versus an 88% likelihood of something. But I do know what it looks like when it's a 92% likelihood versus 12%. |
But you'd accept that better information can improve the quality of the analysis and prompt a reassessment of one's conclusion?
You are criticising the Drake equation, but few (sane) people would hold that up and say "I believe that advanced alien civilisation aliens exists and this equation justifies that belief". I think that any equation for the existence of god would face the same challenge.
Incidentally, the elements of the equation for alien life (rather than advanced alien civilisations) are much more identifiable. We now know that all the same criteria (which resulted in life here) very likely exist on countless other planets, so the likelihood of life is increasingly high (unless you take the view that only a creator can initiate life (other than his own), and that the creator only did so once on Earth).
|
|
|
|
02/05/2011 06:10:01 PM · #1086 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm aware of that stuff Paul and I think it's pretty cool. But I do think the proper terminology is to say our estimates are "adjusted" rather than "refined". Refined indicates we are adding more and more places of significance to the probability. Going from a 10% to an 80% chance is an adjustment. Going from 80% to 82% to 82.5% is a series of refinements. Make sense?
The article doesn't even speculate on a number though. "countless" isn't very helpful when you are putting it in an equation... |
Whether "adjusted" or "refined," the fact are that several variable in the Drake equation that were almost wholly guesswork when the equation was first formulated are now true estimated probabilities based on an ever-increasing body of evidence (such as the potential number of habitable planets, per GenIE's post). As more evidence accumulates, the error bars for the estimated probabilities get smaller and (perhaps more importantly) the range of defensible estimates for those variables decreases.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
fi = the fraction of planets that develop life that actually go on to develop intelligent life
Tell me how you are going to get at that number without making the Drake equation obsolete? I think that number is one in a trillion trillion trillion. Looks like we're out of luck... ;) What are you going to say back? |
First, I would just point out that there are ways for controlling for unknown variables in these types of probability equations. Actually, not knowing a definitive probability for any one variable is not that big of a deal. By using those variables where data is available you can still make determinations about whether new information causes the overall probability to increase or decrease.
Second, I would ask on what basis you believe the probability to be "one in a trillion trillion trillion"? Next, I would ask why you think that the number is inherently unknowable, if you do? There is no basis to make anything other than a gut-level guess at the variable now (by blind luck your one in a trillion trillion trillion guess just might be correct, but you can't defend that guess with anything other than a "sounds right to me" argument), but that doesn't mean that it is impossible to collect data that can be used to begin making educated probability estimates.
There is nothing inherently unknowable about fi, its a simple data collection problem. Whether it is practically knowable may be a different question. The time frame to gather enough data to make a credible probability estimate is likely measurable in millennia (unless someone figures out a workaround for bypassing the speed of light), and I'm not sure I give the human race long odds on being able to stick around long enough, at a high enough technological level,
|
|
|
|
02/05/2011 06:16:46 PM · #1087 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by SP:
Further, while I can imagine a "Drake equation for God," I don't see how you develop a similar equation for a dogmatic issue like "faith vs. works," since the very question itself is non-empirical. |
Well, that's fine since I'm not the one requiring empiric evidence for every question that is worth asking. |
That's not a question worth asking. |
|
|
|
02/05/2011 06:29:56 PM · #1088 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
There is nothing inherently unknowable about fi, its a simple data collection problem. Whether it is practically knowable may be a different question. The time frame to gather enough data to make a credible probability estimate is likely measurable in millennia (unless someone figures out a workaround for bypassing the speed of light) |
I'm not too sure about that.
The first three variables can be given a credible range of estimates (other than zero) :
R* = the rate of star creation in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets
It's these last four we're stuck on. They could be anything from 0 to 1 :
fl = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc = the fraction of the above that are willing and able to communicate
L = the expected lifetime of such a civilization for the period that it can communicate across interstellar space
fl is very critical to the equation. It's possible to identify planets which are capable of supporting life. But whether or not earth was the only planet in the Universe on which life developed is a big question. But we wouldn't have to travel to other star systems to start putting numbers against it. If life is discovered on Europa, for example, then it proves that it's possible for life to either spontaneously appear given the right conditions and enough time, or arrive there on asteroids (can't think of the word for this)
|
|
|
|
02/05/2011 06:36:15 PM · #1089 |
Originally posted by JH:
...arrive there on asteroids (can't think of the word for this) |
Panspermia. |
|
|
|
02/05/2011 06:39:51 PM · #1090 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by JH:
...arrive there on asteroids (can't think of the word for this) |
Panspermia. |
Yup, that's it - thanks! |
|
|
|
02/06/2011 12:13:17 AM · #1091 |
My point is that if you were to somehow gather evidence for how many times planets with life go on to support intelligent life, you would have already found extraterrestrial life (thus making the Drake equation less important). Those last three or four variables cannot be even approximated until you find other life. Even if you find other life in this solar system we would be unsure of whether life came about more than once or whether it was spread from planet to planet via contamination.
Even if you have one completely unknown variable it would be enough to make the rest of the equation worthless. If your values is .9999999999 versus 0.000000001 you have just swung the equation by a power of 10^9.
I guess I just always put very little difference between "such and such is unknowable because we can't obtain any evidence for it" and "such and such is unknowable because while it would be theoretically possible to obtain the evidence, there is no possible practical way to do so". To me, the difference between a generic god and the multiverse, for example, is zilch. The multiverse, for all intents and purposes, is in some ways, a type of god. |
|
|
|
02/06/2011 12:53:42 AM · #1092 |
| Because neither is concretely provable? Nonsense. The notion of the multiverse is begat by science and mathematics and is theoretically repeatably provable. The notion of god is begat by ignorance. |
|
|
|
02/06/2011 01:40:16 AM · #1093 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Because neither is concretely provable? Nonsense. The notion of the multiverse is begat by science and mathematics and is theoretically repeatably provable. The notion of god is begat by ignorance. |
Totally wrong Louis. The notion of the multiverse is an unprovable, unfalsifiable idea with no Scientific merit as a hypothesis (in the strict sense of the word). Can you explain to me how it is "theoretically repeatably provable"?
You merely prefer one over the other because it suits your worldview. |
|
|
|
02/06/2011 01:46:41 AM · #1094 |
This pretty well sums it up for me:
Critics say it doesn’t even qualify as a scientific theory because the existence of other universes cannot be proved or disproved. Advocates argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable nonĂ‚Âreligious explanation for what is often called the “fine-tuning problemӉ€”the baffling observation that the laws of the universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life. Its amusing that some are so adamant against the unprovable concept of a creator that they go to such lengths as believing in something else equally unprovable.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2011 01:57:05 AM · #1095 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I guess I just always put very little difference between "such and such is unknowable because we can't obtain any evidence for it" and "such and such is unknowable because while it would be theoretically possible to obtain the evidence, there is no possible practical way to do so". To me, the difference between a generic god and the multiverse, for example, is zilch. The multiverse, for all intents and purposes, is in some ways, a type of god. |
What about believing in unicorns, sasquatch, loch ness monsters and the like? Equal footing too, right?
|
|
|
|
02/06/2011 02:10:14 AM · #1096 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
This pretty well sums it up for me:
Critics say it doesn’t even qualify as a scientific theory because the existence of other universes cannot be proved or disproved. Advocates argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable nonĂ‚Âreligious explanation for what is often called the “fine-tuning problemӉ€”the baffling observation that the laws of the universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life. Its amusing that some are so adamant against the unprovable concept of a creator that they go to such lengths as believing in something else equally unprovable. |
Critics probably once said the same thing about the existence of other continents, or proving the earth was round or that the earth wasn't at the center of the universe or that the universe is much bigger than first thought. The possible existence of a multiverse is just an extension of the latter and if that's the case then we simply used the wrong word (i.e. universe) for describing our neck of the woods. Just because we don't have the tools or the ability to prove or disprove a multiverse at this moment in time doesn't make it unprovable.
Message edited by author 2011-02-06 02:12:05.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2011 10:36:03 AM · #1097 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Because neither is concretely provable? Nonsense. The notion of the multiverse is begat by science and mathematics and is theoretically repeatably provable. The notion of god is begat by ignorance. |
Totally wrong Louis. The notion of the multiverse is an unprovable, unfalsifiable idea with no Scientific merit as a hypothesis (in the strict sense of the word). Can you explain to me how it is "theoretically repeatably provable"?
You merely prefer one over the other because it suits your worldview. |
Well, I admit I'm ignorant of the science, and typed too hastily in suggesting that there are repeatable experiments supporting multiverses. I know that most of the theory behind, say, quantum mechanics is untestable, even though it's applied in industry. If I can rephrase. There is science behind the formulae giving rise to the theory of the multiverse. There is squat behind the notion of gods. It's an attempt to rationalize the irrational, and a fallacy of the highest conceit, to suggest that airy-fairy world views are responsible for both the acceptance of the work of specialists in the arcane corners of physics, and the compulsion to swallow religious dogma whole. Sorry, but my last post concerning your motives was bang on. |
|
|
|
02/06/2011 10:51:19 AM · #1098 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The notion of the multiverse is an unprovable, unfalsifiable idea with no Scientific merit as a hypothesis |
As we've gotten smarter over time, we've learned that just about the time you etch something in stone, new techniques of acquiring knowledge about yesterday's theories show us that what we'd thought to be true, is no longer. So the "facts" like "The earth is flat" and such things have been disproven by the advent of better knowledge. What that has shown us is that we must be aware that there is a distinct possibility that what we know as true today, may not be tomorrow. In that manner, based on how we've learned that the world we live in keeps getting smaller in the big picture pretty much means that we should keep an open mind about a multiverse until it is either proven or disproven. There's a precedent for this thinking.
Religious beliefs, however, have no such basis for substantiation, and therefore acceptance, even to the possibility of the existence of a god. How can you possibly attempt to compare the two?
If we haven't learned anything else in the last couple millenia, we have learned to change and grow as a society of evolving, growing, and changing people......which means that sticking doggedly to a set of tenets over 2000 years old without allowing any room for change and progress is kind of self-defeating. I can't honestly believe that an all-powerful god would have us think this way, would you?
|
|
|
|
02/06/2011 11:32:26 AM · #1099 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
If we haven't learned anything else in the last couple millenia, we have learned to change and grow as a society of evolving, growing, and changing people......which means that sticking doggedly to a set of tenets over 2000 years old without allowing any room for change and progress is kind of self-defeating. I can't honestly believe that an all-powerful god would have us think this way, would you? |
You would think God could establish a church that would last over the years and could change with the times and not die. |
|
|
|
02/06/2011 11:33:01 AM · #1100 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
If we haven't learned anything else in the last couple millenia, we have learned to change and grow as a society of evolving, growing, and changing people......which means that sticking doggedly to a set of tenets over 2000 years old without allowing any room for change and progress is kind of self-defeating. I can't honestly believe that an all-powerful god would have us think this way, would you? |
You would think God could establish a church that would last over the years and could change with the times and not die. |
Zeus sure did. He was around for millennia. |
|
