Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

Bill White · 2002-08-12 09:00:59

The Copernican principle tells us that we are not special.

Humanity is not the center of divine creation, our Earth is not the center of the Cosmos nor even the center of the solar system,

We are not the pinnacle or "goal " of evolution, etc. . .

Rationally. I find it hard to argue with the truth of the Copernican principle.

Turn now to Drake's equation - or as I have re-phrased it before - Drake's lottery.

Z% of stars will have planets in the "life zone"
Y% of those planets will evolve life;
X% of that life will progress beyond microbes, becoming multi-cellular;
W% of such life will evolve intelligence & the ability to make radio transmission, etc. . .

One factor is - does this species extinguish itself in nuclear war or by destroying its environment before making contact with any other species. Another, a species grows bored and through apathy fails to use spaceflight - like the Ming Dynasty Zubrin has written about.

The Copernican principle tells us we are NOT special and therefore we cannot expect any better odds at making it through any of these stages.

But, might the illusion of our species being "special" give us a better chance of "winning" at Drake's lottery - or would it hurt our chances?

Knowing the truth may not always be better. . .

???

Palomar · 2002-08-12 10:00:45

But, might the illusion of our species being "special" give us a better chance of "winning" at Drake's lottery - or would it hurt our chances?

*Yipes. That's a reeeeally good question. ???

It seems the attitude of "we are the center of the universe, the highest pinnacle of creation/evolution" has either engendered a lot of misery and destructiveness or -- in the case of the 18th century Enlightenment era -- fueled some of the world's greatest philosophies, art, music, decor, adventuresomeness, etc. etc.

I think, in this case, it's "not what you know, it's HOW you use it." Though I'm not implying I agree with the human-egocentric outlook on the universe.

--Cindy

GOM · 2002-08-12 20:10:09

The Copernican principle tells us that we are not special.
Humanity is not the center of divine creation, our Earth is not the center of the Cosmos nor even the center of the solar system

Hello Bill,

The Bible tells us that we are special.

There are many many design factors to the universe and our placement within it. For example: We are very "lucky" to have Jupiter protecting us. Also, there are many places in the universe that the radiation would fry us. As I recall, being at the center of the Milky Way is one of those places. There is a huge difference between being at the center and being in a place where life can survive and flourish.

.02

Here's a link to an astrophysicist who knows a lot about the design factors of the universe:

http://www.reasons.org/resourc....ml?main

Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe
by Hugh Ross

?Reasons To Believe, 2002, Compiled June 2002

For physical life to be possible in the universe, several characteristics must take on specific values, and these are listed below.1 In the case of several of these characteristics, and given the intricacy of their interrelationships, the indication of divine ?fine tuning? seems incontrovertible.

Strong nuclear force constant
Weak nuclear force constant
Gravitational force constant
Electromagnetic force constant
Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
Ratio of proton to electron mass
Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
Expansion rate of the universe
Mass density of the universe
Baryon (proton and neutron) density of the universe
Space energy density of the universe
Entropy level of the universe
Velocity of light
Age of the universe
Uniformity of radiation
Homogeneity of the universe
Average distance between galaxies
Average distance between stars
Average size and distribution of galaxy clusters
Fine structure constant
Decay rate of protons
Ground state energy level for helium-4
Carbon-12 to oxygen-16 nuclear energy level ratio
Decay rate for beryllium-8
Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
Initial excess of nucleons over antinucleons
Polarity of the water molecule
Epoch for hypernova eruptions
Number and type of hypernova eruptions
Epoch for supernova eruptions
Number and types of supernova eruptions
Epoch for white dwarf binaries
Density of white dwarf binaries
Ratio of exotic matter to ordinary matter
Number of effective dimensions in the early universe
Number of effective dimensions in the present universe
Mass of the neutrino
Decay rates of exotic mass particles
Magnitude of big bang ripples
Size of the relativistic dilation factor
Magnitude of the Heisenberg uncertainty
Quantity of gas deposited into the deep intergalactic medium by the first supernovae
Positive nature of cosmic pressures
Positive nature of cosmic energy densities
Density of quasars
Decay rate of cold dark matter particles
relative abundances of different exotic mass particles

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1Most of the source references may be found in The Creator and the Cosmos, 3rd edition by Hugh Ross (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001), pp. 145-157, 245-248. Additional references are listed below:

Weihsueh A. Chiu, Nickolay Y. Gneden and Jeremiah P. Ostriker, ?The Expected Mass Function for Low-Mass Galaxies in a Cold Dark Matter Cosmology: Is There a Problem?? Astrophysical Journal, 563 (2001), pp. 21-27.
Martin Elvis, Massimo Marengo, and Margarita Karovska, ?Smoking Quasars: A New Source for Cosmic Dust,? Astrophysical Journal Letters, 567 (2002), pp. L107-L110.
Martin White and C. S. Kochanek, ?Constraints on the Long-Range Properties of Gravity from Weak Gravitational Lensing,? Astrophysical Journal, 560 (2001), pp. 539-543.
P. P. Avelino and C. J. A. P. Martins, ?A Supernova Brane Scan,? Astrophysical Journal, 565 (2002), pp. 661-667.
P. deBernardis, et al, ?Multiple Peaks in the Angular Power Spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background: Significance and Consequences for Cosmology,? Astrophysical Journal, 564 (2002), pp. 559-566.
A. T. Lee, et al, ?A High Spatial Resolution Analysis of the MAXIMA-1 Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy Data,? Astrophysical Journal Letters, 561 (2001), pp. L1-L5.
R. Stompor, et al, ?Cosmological Implications of MAXIMA-1 High-Resolution Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy Measurement,? Astrophysical Journal Letters, 561 (2001), pp. L7-L10.
Andrew Watson, ?Cosmic Ripples Confirm Universe Speeding Up,? Science, 295 (2002), pp. 2341-2343.
Anthony Aguirre, Joop Schaye, and Eliot Quataert, ?Problems for Modified Newtonian Dynamics in Clusters and the Lya Forest?? Astrophysical Journal, 561 (2001), pp. 550-558.
Chris Blake and Jasper Wall, ?A Velocity Dipole in the Distribution of Radio Galaxies,? Nature, 416 (2002), pp. 150-152.
G. Efstathiou, et al, ?Evidence for a Non-Zero L and a Low Matter Density from a Combined Analysis of the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey and Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropies,? Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 330 (2002), pp. L29-L35.
Susana J. Landau and Hector Vucetich, ?Testing Theories That Predict Time Variation of Fundamental Constants, ? Astrophysical Journal, 570 (2002), pp. 463-469.
Renyue Cen, ?Why Are There Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxies?? Astrophysical Journal Letters, 549 (2001), pp. L195-L198.
Brandon Carter, "Energy Dominance and the Hawking Ellis Vacuum Conservation Theorem," (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0205010 v1, 2 May 2002.

Phobos · 2002-08-12 20:25:04

But, might the illusion of our species being "special" give us a better chance of "winning" at Drake's lottery - or would it hurt our chances?

Sounds like the kind of discussion Plato would spark up. Plato definately believed that trumping up illusion over reality at times was an acceptable practice for a ruler. Anyways, I think the answer to your question depends on how someone interprets it. If people think that humanity is special in the religious sense that Cindy speaks of, I would definately say it hurts our chances of success of advancing as a species. But on the other hand I think we are entitled to believe there is something special about us just based on the fact that we happen to have in our cranial spaces the most complex handful of matter known in the universe. The fact that we so far know of no other species that has the aptitude for reasoning and inventing like we do bolsters the argument for me at least that we should strive to preserve humanity. I think if you denigrate humanity to the point of saying it's absolutely nothing special I think you'll start to run into very anti-human views that ultimately will have adverse affects on our development and perhaps our very existence. Personally I think we should strive to spread intelligence throughout the universe just in case we are alone but not to the dentriment of other life in the universe should it exist. There's plenty of space to go around!

Bill White · 2002-08-12 21:46:25

Thinking back - I believe I first became interested in space advocacy after reading a cartoon - Pogo, if I recall correctly.

It went as follows - as I recall:

Frame 1:

Two cartoon characters are laying on their backs, looking at the stars.

#1: Do you think there is intelligent life out there?
#2: I don't know. What do you think?

Frame 2:

#1 I don't know either.

Frame 3:

Meaningful stares and silence.

Frame 4:

#2 Yeah, but either way, its a mighty sobering answer.

= = =

If we are "it" - if there is not any other life out there, then to stay home due to apathy, etc. . . -or- to extinguish ourselves with the thermonuclear equivalent of kids playing with matches would be staggering criminal.

On the other hand, if there are billions of species "out there" I also believe God would want us to meet our cousins. They would also be "special" and therefore deserving of our respect.

= = =

The silence of SETI leads me to believe life may be far rarer than some others believe. Fermi's question, "Where is everyone?" has not be answered to my satisfaction.

Phobos · 2002-08-13 16:34:46

The silence of SETI leads me to believe life may be far rarer than some others believe. Fermi's question, "Where is everyone?" has not be answered to my satisfaction.

I think part of the problem with SETI is that our current equipment is only capable of picking up signals that were created within a few hundred light years of the Solar System unless the signals are very strong and intentionally sent.

PaganToris · 2002-08-15 11:00:52

Well now Phobos cmon now anti human i dont thnx no one would be anti human
Anti human is like being a alian or a Neandrothol or some what like that but i thnx that yer all wrong on that part anti human
ughhhh!!!!!!!!!
Herehttp://BigJerm.zzn.com

Phobos · 2002-08-15 21:13:47

Well now Phobos cmon now anti human i dont thnx no one would be anti human
Anti human is like being a alian or a Neandrothol or some what like that but i thnx that yer all wrong on that part anti human
ughhhh!!!!!!!!!

I meant anti-human as in people who think the human race should be either stamped out or strictly controlled in anti-progressive ways. If you mean to say there aren't people out there with anti-human viewpoints, well you might want to check these yoyos out.

clark · 2002-08-20 11:56:17

Drakes equation always reminded me of a Zen question.

If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

If an alien civilization exsists in the vastness of space, but we never find evidence of them, do they really exsist?

Ah, the conundrum of exsistence beyond perception.

The available evidence suggests that ours is the only world in the right part of this galaxy, with the right solar system "eco-system" (jupiter, our moon, a stable star, etc), the right chemicals, the right (or tolerable) amount of radiation to support more than unicellular life.

Then there is the genetic lottery induced by our environment which led us to intelligence.

How many planets have the appropriate tectonic activity to drive erosion or a liquid core that is capable of generating a protective magnetic field?

How many "intelligent" species also win the gentic lottery for language and speech? Heard recently that the scientists have identified genes responsible for language.

My bet is that there is all manner of creation out there in the universe, and probably, if we look long (millions of EONS) enough- we will find intelligent life resembling ours. However, by and large, I think that most of what is out there is so unrecognizable by us, or is recognizable but so utterly ALIEN that we cannot hope to comprehend it.

The universe is infinite. So, law of averages should allow for at least one more intelligent species. However, the universe is infinite, so the distance seperating us from other intelligent life forms serves to only make their exsistence irrelevant.

Which would you prefer: A universe in which alien life exsists, but we have no hope of ever talking to them, or meeting them. OR, a universe in which we are the only intelligent life.

Josh Cryer · 2002-08-20 12:57:25

If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

Yes. Sound isn't reliant on a person to hear it for it to exist.

If an alien civilization exsists in the vastness of space, but we never find evidence of them, do they really exsist?

If they exist, they exist. If we cannot detect their existance, it only means we cannot detect their existance. To assume that they don't exist is as unscientific as assuming they do.

How many planets have the appropriate tectonic activity to drive erosion or a liquid core that is capable of generating a protective magnetic field?

How many planets have comparatively large moons? There you will find your answer. And I suspect that the number would be quite high.

How many "intelligent" species also win the gentic lottery for language and speech? Heard recently that the scientists have identified genes responsible for language.

The gene responsible for human speech, you mean. Language is a much broader scale...

Which would you prefer: A universe in which alien life exsists, but we have no hope of ever talking to them, or meeting them. OR, a universe in which we are the only intelligent life.

A universe in which alien life exists. A universe without alien life (assuming we coule prove that there is no alien life) would be too profound for me to handle.

clark · 2002-08-20 13:08:20

Yes. Sound isn't reliant on a person to hear it for it to exist.

How do you know? The requirements for the hypothesis to be proven or disproven are immpossible to meet- it would require having a test whereby no one is there to hear a tree fall. (using a tape recorder is not an option)

If they exist, they exist. If we cannot detect their existance, it only means we cannot detect their existance. To assume that they don't exist is as unscientific as assuming they do.

I can accept that. However, what is the result? If alien being exsist, but we are unable to detect that exsistence, then for all intents and purposes, they might as well not exsist in the first place- at least as far as we should be concerned. If you have a door knob, but you have no means with which to turn the knob and open the door, whatever is behind that door is irrelevant.

How many planets have comparatively large moons? There you will find your answer. And I suspect that the number would be quite high.

But that is but ONE criteria for life (we assume). The entire set up of this solar system, this galaxy- all help to induce, create, and support our life form. How many other places in the universe can meet the same requirements.. i mean everything.

The gene responsible for human speech, you mean. Language is a much broader scale...

You are correct- but language is gene related as well.

universe in which alien life exists. A universe without alien life (assuming we coule prove that there is no alien life) would be too profound for me to handle.

Okay, if we accept that alien life exsists, but have no means to prove that alien life exsists, we now have the fundamental precepts of a religion- or a belief system.

Bill White · 2002-08-20 13:29:14

How many planets have comparatively large moons? There you will find your answer. And I suspect that the number would be quite high.

Perhaps - per the impact theory, a Mars sized object struck the Earth at the precise angle needed to blast off a Luna-sized blob of crust and allow that crust to coalesce into our Moon. A few degrees either way and the Earth would either have been shattered or not enough material would be ejected to make a large moon.

Another "side benefit" of the impact theory is the theory that the missing crust orbiting overhead opened up space to allow the remaining tectonic plates to move about - rather like those children's puzzles where 8 squares are arranged in a 3 x 3 matrix and you shuttle pieces into the open space trying to make patterns.

Venus has no such open spaces and therefore the tectonic forces are landlocked. Energy which the Earth expends moving about the various continental plates is turned into heat on Venus which aggravates its greenhouse condition.

Fascinating stuff, way better than my day job.

Palomar · 2002-08-20 13:33:24

I meant anti-human as in people who think the human race should be either stamped out

*There is ALOT of misanthropic sentiment today, IMO. A few years ago I saw a bumper sticker which said something like, "Help take back Mother Earth: Commit suicide." If I'd have run into the person who owned the car I would've said, "Oh, fine -- AFTER YOU, of course!"

I don't know if other Western nations are this way, but there is, and has been for a long time, this degrading, jackass sense of "humor" going about in the USA, in which it's "trendy" to try and push peoples' buttons, being deliberately insulting without provocation, etc., etc. Most people who come to my region to visit comment on how "nice, friendly, and courteous" people here are...yet somehow they are overlooking bumper-stickers and rear-window decals of little boys taking a whizz on some object, the upthrust middle finger, "f*ck you" or "p*ss on you" in stylized letters; the most galling rear-window decal I ever saw depicted two "stick figures" [like you may see on bathroom doors] in a sexual position, female submissive and male dominant, with big words "Designated Driver" beneath it. I don't care about this man's sexual preferences, yet he feels the need to make sure you know exactly how he feels about male-female relations. And this is coming from people who usually get all hot under the collar about persons expressing themselves in a religious vein!

I'm no prude, and definitely not a saint myself. However, IMO this is all an indication of lack of class and taste; it's gone beyond "humor" a long time ago, and is, IMO, simply petty baiting tactics to try and provoke hostility, anger, etc., etc. It's stupid.

As an aside, I heard on the news last evening that metropolitan trash dumpsters will now have signs posted on them that women can take their babies to hospitals within 72 hours of birth and NOT face legal abandoment charges, i.e. encouraging mothers of unwanted babies to take the baby to a hospital ER instead of putting it in the dumpster. I agree with the news commentator who said that this indicates a new low in American society...yeah, when a society feels compelled to advertise on a TRASH DUMPSTER not to throw a living baby into it, but take it to the hospital instead, something is seriously wrong.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-08-20 13:54:09

I don't know if other Western nations are this way, but there is, and has been for a long time, this degrading, jackass sense of "humor" going about in the USA, in which it's "trendy" to try and push peoples' buttons, being deliberately insulting without provocation, etc., etc.

Could it possibly be in reaction to the tilt toward politcal correctness? Extremes are never good, unless it is the lottery.

I agree with the news commentator who said that this indicates a new low in American society...yeah, when a society feels compelled to advertise on a TRASH DUMPSTER not to throw a living baby into it, but take it to the hospital instead, something is seriously wrong.

I believe it is a matter of perspective Cindy. Wouldn't it be a true "low" if we had the same problem, but did absolutely nothing to correct it?

By and large, "baby dumping" is not all that common- and the signs are merely a small means to help a very small segment of society that is apparently uneducated to all of their available options.

You should have yelled at the commentator for reducing the situation to such simplistic terms and only increasing the ignorance surrounding the problem.

Watch Jerry Springer and you will get new american lows, evey episode. It is not indivitive of anything about america other than our penchant for voyerism.

Josh Cryer · 2002-08-20 16:48:18

How do you know? The requirements for the hypothesis to be proven or disproven are immpossible to meet- it would require having a test whereby no one is there to hear a tree fall.

Because the domain which the question is being proposed allows sound to exist.

Had you asked, ?If a tree fell in a forest and nothing heard it, would it make a sound?? then I would ask if you could call a place in which nothing but a tree existed, a forest at all.

Reminds me of this question someone proposed to me, they asked, ?Would you be bored if you were locked in an empty room??

If alien being exsist, but we are unable to detect that exsistence, then for all intents and purposes, they might as well not exsist in the first place- at least as far as we should be concerned.

Well, that's largely true. But prove that they don't. And prove that we're unable to detect their existance over time. You can't. However, I can show the possibility of their existance.

But that is but ONE criteria for life (we assume). The entire set up of this solar system, this galaxy- all help to induce, create, and support our life form.

Well, yeah. I was just answering your question. I think we can break down things into simple factors. Our molten core isn't there by magic, it's there because we have a moon.

Okay, if we accept that alien life exsists, but have no means to prove that alien life exsists, we now have the fundamental precepts of a religion- or a belief system.

Well, it's not just accepting that alien life exists, it's taking a set of data and extrapolating a possibility. Science isn't about absolutes.

But I'm not denying that science has religious aspects.

Phobos · 2002-08-20 20:36:03

*Cindy wrote*

I don't know if other Western nations are this way, but there is, and has been for a long time, this degrading, jackass sense of "humor" going about in the USA, in which it's "trendy" to try and push peoples' buttons, being deliberately insulting without provocation, etc., etc.

I know what you mean by this inflammatory type of humor. Not very long ago I saw a car with a bumper sticker that loudly proclaimed "It sucks to be you." Why would people stick such trash on the back of their cars? What's the point in insulting people who have done nothing to you? I can't say I really found the bumper sticker insulting but it makes you wonder about the personality of the driver. They're probably some condenscending type that think they're god's gift to Earth, or they have a really bad insecurity problem. Either way it'd be hard to deny that this type of anti-social idiocy is on the rise in our culture.

*Clark wrote*

Which would you prefer: A universe in which alien life exsists, but we have no hope of ever talking to them, or meeting them. OR, a universe in which we are the only intelligent life.

If those are the only two possibilities that we're allowed to entertain I would rather live in the universe in which other intelligent life exists even if we can't communicate with it. I'd like to think that if we ever kill ourselves off there are other intelligent beings in the universe to carry on the torch. Anyways, even if our type of intelligence is very different from another I'd hope we'd share the capacity of reason. After all, as far as I know, 2+2=4 everywhere in the universe. Attempting to share mathematical principles somehow might be a good way of trying to establish initial communication (I'm not sure how'd you go about this, maybe use pictograms that try to convey the mathematical reasoning?) And yes the means by which the alien society internalizes symbols and communicates might be so different that we'd might never hope to establish any kind of dialogue, but it never hurts to try.

Palomar · 2002-08-21 11:25:17

But I'm not denying that science has religious aspects.

*Josh, would you please elaborate on this comment? I'm curious as to your thoughts on how science has religious aspects.

--Cindy

Palomar · 2002-08-21 11:35:18

Me: I don't know if other Western nations are this way, but there is, and has been for a long time, this degrading, jackass sense of "humor" going about in the USA, in which it's "trendy" to try and push peoples' buttons, being deliberately insulting without provocation, etc., etc.

Clark: Could it possibly be in reaction to the tilt toward politcal correctness?

*Yes, could be. But it's not an excuse. I don't have much toleration or sympathy for knee-jerk reactionary herd followers of any stripe.

Clark: Extremes are never good.

*Agreed.

Me: I agree with the news commentator who said that this indicates a new low in American society...yeah, when a society feels compelled to advertise on a TRASH DUMPSTER not to throw a living baby into it, but take it to the hospital instead, something is seriously wrong.

Clark: I believe it is a matter of perspective Cindy. Wouldn't it be a true "low" if we had the same problem, but did absolutely nothing to correct it?

*Yes indeed.

Clark: Watch Jerry Springer and you will get new american lows, evey episode. It is not indivitive of anything about america other than our penchant for voyerism

*Well, I think this issue goes beyond voyeurism. I never watched Jerry Springer, btw. And, IMO, there's a difference between a person deliberately seeking out insulting and degrading situations [i.e., exposing themselves to it by turning the channel to the Jerry Springer show and then keeping it there] versus hostile and aggressive people who always want to push it up in your face. I agree with Phobos' sentiment about such people.

Recently we've had a situation in NYC with the "Opie & Anthony Show," [radio] where couples took a dare [and I suppose were up to win a prize] for having sex in a very public place with a good chance of getting caught. One couple decided a Catholic cathedral in NYC would be their "spot." I'm not religious, and this offended me as well. It's as odious, childish, and stupid as if they'd picked someone's grave to have sex on, and thereby degrading the deceased and insulting their family.

Something's wrong with a society when people go to great lengths to deliberately offend and insult others just for the heck of it, and others get their kicks out of watching it. That's my opinion. These people need to get a life, grow up, whatever.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-08-21 11:47:27

Because the domain which the question is being proposed allows sound to exist

I can accept that, yet the requirement stipulated by the scientific method requires actual proof- not deduced reasoning. It is a matter of faith- a belief in the system of the scientific method that allows you to make that jump, yet to make that jump, and accept is as "fact" is to violate the very precepts of the scientific method.

So according to the rules of the system of Science, you must develop a hypothesis and a null hypothesis. Then you must be able to test them. The zen question regarding trees and sound is based on the idea that exsistence is only meaningful to "us" if we can perceive it.

The fact of the matter is you can't prove, by the critera set forth by the scientific method, that a tree falling in the woods makes a sound if no one is there to hear it. Of course we can reason it out, and assume that it must make a sound- but that is not proof.

Well, that's largely true. But prove that they don't. And prove that we're unable to detect their existance over time. You can't. However, I can show the possibility of their existance.

I can show the possibility of the exsistence of God, the Yeti, the Loch Ness Monster, and Atlantis. You can't "prove" that they don't exsist- if you could, there wouldn't be a question about them. I can't prove aliens don't exsist, any more than you can prove they do exsist- all the "possibilities" are mere conjecture and idle speculation base off incomplete facts and assumptions.

All I have been pointing out though in regards to alien life is that it is unwise to assume either stance is more correct than another- I get sick of the "my god versus your god" arguments.

Well, it's not just accepting that alien life exists, it's taking a set of data and extrapolating a possibility.

And there is an equal amount of data, which when extrapolated, also demonstrates that the possibility of alien life is very very small, if non-exsistent.

Palomar · 2002-08-21 11:51:52

- it would require having a test whereby no one is there to hear a tree fall. (using a tape recorder is not an option)

*Why is using a taper recorder NOT an option? It's not a human being after all, doesn't have ears...

--Cindy

clark · 2002-08-21 12:30:34

*Why is using a taper recorder NOT an option? It's not a human being after all, doesn't have ears...

Becuase using a tape recorder is an extension of perception, the zen question is dealing with the concept of understanding exsistence beyond perception- if you want to play semantics, then yes, modern day technology can answer a three thousand year old puzzle with no solution- but in doing so, it avoids the point of the question to begin with.

How do you prove a rainbow exsists to a blind man?

Josh Cryer · 2002-08-21 14:28:04

Cindy,

Josh, would you please elaborate on this comment? I'm curious as to your thoughts on how science has religious aspects.

Well, say I say that a certain equation is correct. Without checking it, and cross checking it, your belief in the correctness of my equation is mostly faith.

A large part of science is faith, even though science attempts to be about observable truths. (And faith is generally about things not observably true or whatever.)

So when a scientists uses Newtons equations, without checking and cross checking them himself, he's going on faith. Even if it isn't really the same as religious faith, it's still faith.

As I go to respond to clark, it looks like he's saying the same thing to me.

clark,

I can accept that, yet the requirement stipulated by the scientific method requires actual proof- not deduced reasoning.

Well, hypotheses can only be solved through deduced reasoning. The ?interesting? hypotheses tend to have situations you couldn't test.

However, just because you can't test something, it doesn't mean it can't happen. A tree always makes a sound when it falls in the forest. Just because a person isn't around to hear it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

If lightning strikes and causes a fire in a forest and no one is there to experience it, does the forest burn? The physical universe can be seperate from the philosophical one.

The zen question regarding trees and sound is based on the idea that exsistence is only meaningful to "us" if we can perceive it.

Yeah, but the Zen question really has nothing to do with the physical universe. No matter how many times you test it, if a tree falls in a forest, it will make a sound.

Whether or not that is meaningful to us, I don't think it matters. We aren't the only things that exist.

The fact of the matter is you can't prove, by the critera set forth by the scientific method, that a tree falling in the woods makes a sound if no one is there to hear it.

Anything falling in a forest is going to make some sort of sound. As long as the forest exists in the physical universe, and it follows the laws of the physical universe, it will act the way the scientific method says it will.

No one being there to hear it changes nothing.

If it rains in the forest and no one is there to experience it, do the leaves get wet?

I can't prove aliens don't exsist, any more than you can prove they do exsist- all the "possibilities" are mere conjecture and idle speculation base off incomplete facts and assumptions.

Well, it's largely true that current speculation about alien civilization does make a lot of assumptions. But that hardly means the picture won't get more accurate over time.

However, questions regarding god, and the sort, are simply impossible to answer. Knowing god is knowing the universe. Is knowing everything.

Science isn't about knowing everything, just everything we can observe.

And there is an equal amount of data, which when extrapolated, also demonstrates that the possibility of alien life is very very small, if non-exsistent.

Until we can prove that life evolves easily (by say, finding fossils on Mars), any equations about alien life will be highly innaccurate. But science doesn't deny this.

Palomar · 2002-08-21 14:35:30

Me: Why is using a taper recorder NOT an option? It's not a human being after all, doesn't have ears...

Clark: Becuase using a tape recorder is an extension of perception, the zen question is dealing with the concept of understanding exsistence beyond perception- if you want to play semantics, then yes, modern day technology can answer a three thousand year old puzzle with no solution- but in doing so, it avoids the point of the question to begin with.

*Nice try, doesn't fly. You simply don't want proof, which a tape recorder [or video camera, for that matter] could provide. Have you ever heard a sonic boom? I presume you have. Did you always SEE the airplane/jet before you heard the sonic boom? Many times I have heard a sonic boom -- say, when walking to my car, with a zillion things on my mind, the LAST of which has anything to do with airplanes/jets overhead -- and I look up AFTER hearing the sonic boom and SEE the airplane/jet. I've found myself in other situations where suddenly I startle and jump because a person behind me [like most people, I DON'T have eyes on the back of my head] suddenly dropped a piece of china on a hard floor behind me. I heard, then I turned and saw. This proves to me that an object can be HEARD which cannot be SEEN.

Clark: How do you prove a rainbow exsists to a blind man?

*You can't. And we're not talking about blind people and rainbows, Clark. But let's suppose we can perform surgery on this blind man, which enables him to see. I suppose you will argue that even after a successful surgery we still can't prove to him that rainbows exist, because the surgery [like the tape recorder, according to you] is "an extension of perception"? Puh-leeze.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-08-26 13:59:48

I wonder if you go through the same trouble to answer rhetorical questions....

Answering the zen questions is not the point of the riddle. In fact, answering the riddle is ultimetly the wrong answer. The zen question, and the rainbow to a blind man question are both designed to not be answered- the answer is in the implications of accepting that the question has no discernable answer.

If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound? Well, on the surface, we may say yes becuase weassume that reality is independant of us. Leaves get wet, people grow and die, seasons change- all of this independant from our own awareness- or at least we assume so.

I say assume, becuase we have no evidence that proves that this independant reality exsists beyond the means of our perceptions. Using a tv camera, or a recorder, is extending the range of our perceptions- just like the telescope or the microscope extend our perception. Yet what is the reality beyond on our perception? That is the question that is ultimetly being asked by "zen-like" questions. That's why I tried to demonstrate the same thing with the blind man question.

Surgical options aside, how can you prove a rainbow exsists to a blind man? Or more precisely, how do you prove something that cannot be perceived by someone? That is the question I tried asking, but apparently failed at.

A blindman would lack the eyes with which to verify that a rainbow exsists. So does the rainbow exsist or not? If we were all blind, therfore all of us would be unable to perceive rainbows, would they exsist?

You can say yes, but that is operating from the knowledge given to you by sight. That was the purpose of the "if a tree falls in the woods" some three thousand years ago when it was first asked- to make one consider the relationship of perception and reality.

The question, the whole point of the exercise is to examine our understanding of the limits of our perception and our assumptions of reality.

Afterall, the "reality" we all agree is "reality" is nothing more than a mass delusion reinforced through social constructs and limited by environmental constraints.

But then again, what do I know.

Josh Cryer · 2002-08-26 19:09:33

No one can hope to ?prove? the ?nature? of ?reality.? This is why we have religion. One thing one can do is find a system which is based on knowledge gained from experimentation. A system of truisms. Any system outside of such a system, is worthless, in my opinion (except for societial benefits perhaps).

Personally, I don't hold solipsism to be anything more than a childhood fantasy. My ?religion? is that of observable truths, and perhaps a little of the New Testament.

Oh, and BTW, I believe the Falling Tree in the Forest question, is not to ask you an unanswerable question, but rather, to suggest that being concerned with such things is really a waste of time.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-08-12 09:00:59

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#2 2002-08-12 10:00:45

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#3 2002-08-12 20:10:09

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#4 2002-08-12 20:25:04

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#5 2002-08-12 21:46:25

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#6 2002-08-13 16:34:46

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#7 2002-08-15 11:00:52

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#8 2002-08-15 21:13:47

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#9 2002-08-20 11:56:17

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#10 2002-08-20 12:57:25

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#11 2002-08-20 13:08:20

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#12 2002-08-20 13:29:14

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#13 2002-08-20 13:33:24

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#14 2002-08-20 13:54:09

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#15 2002-08-20 16:48:18

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#16 2002-08-20 20:36:03

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#17 2002-08-21 11:25:17

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#18 2002-08-21 11:35:18

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#19 2002-08-21 11:47:27

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#20 2002-08-21 11:51:52

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#21 2002-08-21 12:30:34

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#22 2002-08-21 14:28:04

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#23 2002-08-21 14:35:30

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#24 2002-08-26 13:59:48

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

#25 2002-08-26 19:09:33

Re: Conundrum - Drake's equation & Copernican principle

Board footer