This time, ami has a point....

[amicus]

Marlow...I am going to bypass your Post #72 for the moment and thank you for your last reply. Strangely enough, we share similar world views on many of the things you expressed.

My background is totally different...I ran from a dysfunctional family at age 13 and returned only to be a caregiver to my dying mother. Between those two bookends, I served in two branches of the military as an enlisted man, turned electronics training into a radio career, married three times, produced six children, collected two step children, traveled a lot, built a sailboat and sailed the Bahama's, worked at least a hundred different trades and somehow picked up 500 credits at four different Universities, including Post Graduate work in History.

I really am a nice and gentle man, respectful of women and children and tolerant of those different than me and even some of those who think diametrically in opposition. I can and have learned from everyone I ever met or conversed with, in person or long distance.

The only man I ever met in all my life who knew more than I did about everything, was a professor at the University of Hawaii who was a former Lufewaffe Fighter Pilot, who supported his family after the war by catching rats in Berlin...sadly, he was an anti semite, but he introduced me to Rilke and Goethe and an European view of life that opened my eyes in many ways.

I have an intense love affair with America; what is was and what it is, and like all lovers, I am sometimes blinded by the emotion. I also have a degree in Philosophy, but it doesn't pay well outside academe', so I express my love of Veritas in my fiction, after burning out from 20 years doing talk radio, debating there as I do here.

It is a pleasure to make your acquaintance...I hope you can say the same even if we disagree, which I suspect we will.

regards...ah...select a title from your Sig Line that I might enjoy reading?

Amicus

 

[MarlowBunny]

How do I predict which stories Amicus might like? I have read a few of his, but they are eclectic. He doesn't list any of his favorites. His tags do not indicate genre preferences. He does seem to like history...

I think the best bet may be to wait for my "Earth Day" contest entry. It's in the "Fantasy" genre but could be considered historical fiction. It's all done and waiting. This is my year!

http://www.literotica.com/s/irresistible-little-sister-in-law is my most recent, and I always like my most recent story best.

 

[stephen55]

I really am a nice and gentle man, respectful of women and children and tolerant of those different than me and even some of those who think diametrically in opposition. I can and have learned from everyone I ever met or conversed with, in person or long distance.

The only man I ever met in all my life who knew more than I did about everything, was a...

Amicus

It definitely is the drugs....

 

[amicus]

This originally appeared in the thread Ayn Rand. A query.

I thought it might make a topic for a new thread. Perhaps we should all put down our basic views on philosophy and economics. After all, creative writing in general and perhaps erotic literature in specific, relies on the author's deepest feelings and beliefs about the human nature. Why are we here? What is value?

Is humanity more than just a vast collection of atoms and molecules, dancing on a simple rock, third from a simple star, in a somewhat backwater region of a galaxy far away from where the party is really happening? Is exchanging value for value the real reason we are here? And if it is, just how do we put relative values on mediocre sex as compared to the talents of a hooker who can suck the chrome off a trailer hitch?

What is it really all about? (Alfie?)
................................................................................................................


Originally Posted by amicus
For once, why don't you outline, explain and defend your basic views on philosophy and economics, rather than just continually attack?
Amicus


Amicus and I have been going round and round on various things for a while now. He posted this (in part) in the thread on Ayn Rand. A query. I think it's safe to say that ami is a big time fan of Ayn Rand. I'm not.

But he does have a point in that, instead of attacking the woman, maybe I should put down in writing my basic views on economics and philosophy. As for explaining and defending them...perhaps some other time.

So...here I go...

stephen55's basic views on economics...

Things used to cost, roughly, a dollar a pound. That was some time ago. So was Ayn Rand.



stephen55's basic views on philosophy....

The key to true happiness is to keep breathing, so don't smoke. You tend to live about as long as your lungs function. Ayn Rand died of lung cancer.
......................................................................................................

So there you have it. Now you know what I really think about economics and philosophy and the meaning of life.

Please feel free to add your own personal and deepest held thoughts on what really matters as we go through life on this cosmic quantum journey together, even if some of us weren't invited. And always remember...

The universe is simply one of those things that happens from time to time.[/COLOR]

~~~

I quoted Stupid Stephen's entire Original Post just to expose the true shallow silliness of his basic views on philosophy and economics...not to mention metaphysics, which is where I prefer to dwell for a moment.

Is humanity more than just a vast collection of atoms and molecules, dancing on a simple rock, third from a simple star, in a somewhat backwater region of a galaxy far away from where the party is really happening? Is exchanging value for value the real reason we are here?

For you science buffs, as astronomical observations, theories and conclusions begin to cast serious doubt on Carl Sagan's 'billions and billions' of intelligent species in the Galaxy/Universe; and opens the real possibility, that, God's children or not, we may be the only sentient life anywhere, at any time.

Science has pretty much confirmed, (although they claim nothing is 'absolute'), that there is no other life form of anykind in our Solar system. Even the possibility of life of Mars is a moot point as without a magnetosphere, Mars is not and has never been an environment suitable for life...as we know it...

Given that, and that the speed of light, K, is a constant, and the distance to the closest Star systems is and will always be, beyond the reach or the grasp of humanity...we may well be forever alone in the Universe, without a God, an afterlife or an omniscient meaning and purpose of life....then...it seems to me, it becomes incumbent upon us to forumate what value human life holds and how to infuse that within the matrix of our various societies.

Ayn Rand offers such an understanding of the nature of man, his need for philosophy and the associated disciplines of morals, ethics by which the individual man can exercise some rational control over his actions both on an individual and collective level.

We fortunate few, who can rise above the faith and belief of most, have, it seems to me, a human obligation to pursue the true nature of our existence and communicate that, as best we can, to all of mankind.

If, not is, humanity more than just a vast collection of atoms and molecules inhabiting the Third Rock from the Sun'; if we are more than that, then just what are we?

The past century or so has seen the rise and fall of a dozen philosophical trends, all attempting to fill the vacuum left by the fall of Religion as a source of moral and ethical values. Not until the emergence of Ayn Rand and Objectivism, has a serious attempt been made to truly comprehend the nature of man and the source of values inherent in our existence.

There is a current theory that dark energy and dark matter, both without defintion, supposedly makes up 95% of the content of the known Universe. I find it curious that mental energy is expended on such research and speculations when there is such little knowledge and agreement on the nature of man and our place in the cosmos.

Rand offers a direction towards understanding and comprehension when no other Philosopher even dares approach the fundamentals of existence.

Read everything you can find about her work and make your own judgment. You will find, as I did, and many others have and will, that there is more to human life than the herd behavior of the collective.

Amicus Veritas

 

[MarlowBunny]

There have been recent discoveries of planets within the "habitable" zone of other stars.
There may be life on Mars, Ganymede, Callisto, Europa, and Enceladus.

From http://news.discovery.com/space/enceladus-saturn-moon-life.html:
- New close-up images of Enceladus reveal evidence that the moon could host life.
- One clue is an infrared map of the moon's south pole that shows surface temperatures may be warmer than we thought.
- Images also suggest there are more water-spurting fissures on the moon than we realized.

From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...wly-identified-site-may-host-alien-life.html:
Titan is now the fourth object in the solar system with a deep ocean, after Jupiter's moons Ganymede, Callisto, and Europa. Large reservoirs of liquid water, a condition for life to form and develop, are thus a common feature in the solar system.

Even if we have to travel 65 light years to a nearby star, it could be done. If we take 5 years to accelerate to .8C using nuclear fission power and gravity sling shot, travel for 65 years (but only 13 years subjective time), and decelerate for 5 years, the journey fro the probe or human crew will only be a subjective 23 years. With amble power from reactors for artificial life etc., a crew in a biosphere could make it. It would be smarter to send a probe though.

 

[MarlowBunny]

There have been recent discoveries of planets within the "habitable" zone of other stars.
There may be life on Mars, Ganymede, Callisto, Europa, and Enceladus.

From http://news.discovery.com/space/enceladus-saturn-moon-life.html:
- New close-up images of Enceladus reveal evidence that the moon could host life.
- One clue is an infrared map of the moon's south pole that shows surface temperatures may be warmer than we thought.
- Images also suggest there are more water-spurting fissures on the moon than we realized.

From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...wly-identified-site-may-host-alien-life.html:
Titan is now the fourth object in the solar system with a deep ocean, after Jupiter's moons Ganymede, Callisto, and Europa. Large reservoirs of liquid water, a condition for life to form and develop, are thus a common feature in the solar system.

Even if we have to travel 65 light years to a nearby star, it could be done. If we take 5 years to accelerate to .8C using nuclear fission power and gravity sling shot, travel for 65 years (but only 13 years subjective time), and decelerate for 5 years, the journey fro the probe or human crew will only be a subjective 23 years. With amble power from reactors for artificial life etc., a crew in a biosphere could make it. It would be smarter to send a probe though.

I meant to say, it would take 23 subjective years to travel to Alpha Centauri C, Proxima,at a distance of 1.29 parsecs or 4.24 light years from the Sun. Give enough power for _lights_ heat, etc., a human bio sustainment environment could last that long.

 

[amicus]

Both your links lead to pages listing over 10,000 articles with no specific one singled out...

There are over 100 Moons in our Solar System, none with an environment suitable for human life as we know it. The oceans under the Ice of one moon, 'may' be H2O, but again, they may not. Even so, according to the scientists, any life, if it does exist, would be defined by its' environment, just as we are.

Just a human journey to Mars is fraught with danger for humans as the radiation from the Sun and from Deep Space would be fatal to humans without adequate shielding and the best science to date cannot create such a shield. There is also the bone loss due to zero gravity and artificial gravity is also, at this point, beyond current technology.

Mars in uninhabitable by humans, period, no ifs ands or buts, without a protective magnetosphere, the radiation from the Sun would be lethal to humans. Mars is a dead planet and has been for billions of years, it cannot be terraformed; that is a sci fi story line and nothing more.

Venus in totally uninhabitable, as is Mercury, and farther out the Gas Giants and near absolute zero temperatures preclude even human exploration, it will all have to be done by robotic machines.

I am not just being argumentative, but all the science facts I am aware of indicate that there is no other place in our Solar system suitable for human habitation.

Deep Space travel, unless a 'Warp Drive' or Wormhole speculation bears fruit, and both are unlikely, is simply not possible for humans for the reasons of radiation and zero gravity as mentioned before.

SETI and a dozen other programs, listening for intelligence created communications have drawn a blank for decades and if you think about it, hearing not a single radio signal from space in any direction, is a strong indication that no intelligent life has ever existed outside Earth.

My point is, given that we are alone in the Universe, we need to figure who we are and why, without outside guidance.

Amicus Veritas

 

[MarlowBunny]

I don't know why this site mangles links:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...ewly-identified-site-may-host-alien-life.html

There are moons within our own solar system that could possibly sustain life.

The magnetosphere of Mars is tiny, but three meters under the soil or 6 centimeters under water are both safe from solar and cosmic radiation. Simple life living in Martian lakes could be similar to the life in giant lakes under kilometers of ice in Antarctica. Humans could live under the Martian surface in much the way humans live in Antarctica for prolonged periods.

"Gravity" is provided by acceleration and deceleration with periods of exercise using bungie cords in between. A spinning vessel could also provide "gravity." This is physics 101 stuff. Did you never see "2001: A Space Odyssey?" It's space scenes are very realistic.


I think it is highly likely that there is abundant life in the universe. I am not alone:
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04zw.html

Estimate of how much life: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

The existence of life does not imply intelligent life. Intelligent life does not imply an interest or capability to contact us. Interest and capability of alien life to contact us doesn't imply they have found us yet since our own emissions have only traveled 80 light years or so by now ...

 

[amicus]

I don't know why this site mangles links:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...ewly-identified-site-may-host-alien-life.html

There are moons within our own solar system that could possibly sustain life.

The magnetosphere of Mars is tiny, but three meters under the soil or 6 centimeters under water are both safe from solar and cosmic radiation. Simple life living in Martian lakes could be similar to the life in giant lakes under kilometers of ice in Antarctica. Humans could live under the Martian surface in much the way humans live in Antarctica for prolonged periods.

"Gravity" is provided by acceleration and deceleration with periods of exercise using bungie cords in between. A spinning vessel could also provide "gravity." This is physics 101 stuff. Did you never see "2001: A Space Odyssey?" It's space scenes are very realistic.

~~~

Hello, Marlow...interesting when people have different interpretations of science, eh?

I think it is highly likely that there is abundant life in the universe. I am not alone:
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04zw.html

Estimate of how much life: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

The existence of life does not imply intelligent life. Intelligent life does not imply an interest or capability to contact us. Interest and capability of alien life to contact us doesn't imply they have found us yet since our own emissions have only traveled 80 light years or so by now ...[/

QUOTE]

~~~

The links worked that time...I have been getting regular email updates from Cassini-Huygens for years..perhaps even during the voyage and the approach; a fascinating exploration...I also got updates on the Mars Rovers during their voyage, landing and travels and travails...and I am long familiar with the Drake Equation and was even a fan of Carl Sagan who felt as you do about abundant life in the Universe.

I have been a science fiction reader since the 1940's, the good stuff, not the bug eyed monster crap (BEM's), and I accepted Sagan's premises, just based on statistics and averages and such...but time and science marches on and things change.

Let me say that I thought much as you do for most of my life and based on the same information you referenced. But, and I think it was a Science Channel Episode, "If we had no Moon", that finally forced me to rethink the entire equation concerning life in the Universe.

Without a Moon, there would be no life on Earth. I won't offer the proof, but if you doubt, I suggest the feature will explain it well.

Secondly, over the past few years Astronomers have discovered over 400 'exo planets' orbiting distant suns, the vast majority gas giants close to their suns. It seems that those gas giants formed farther away from their suns but their orbits decayed and they swept up all the smaller, possibly earth sized planets.

Which brings up distance from the sun as a factor in the possibility of any life evolving. Planets like Mercury and Venus are too close, too hot, no life of any kind, and beyond Mars, too cold.

Then, of course, a planet must have a liquid metal core to generate a protective magnetosphere or radiation from the sun makes life impossible.

I list just a few, from memory, of the dozens of requirements that would enable life, of any kind, to occur, and as the requirements increase, the possiblities diminish.

Just from those fundamentals, one can determine that the Drake Equation was/is far too optimistic concerning the possibilities of life.

Now for the more difficult task: "The existence of life does not imply intelligent life. Intelligent life does not imply an interest or capability to contact us. Interest and capability of alien life to contact us doesn't imply they have found us yet since our own emissions have only traveled 80 light years or so by now ..."

I offer a logical refutation to your first sentence. I do so by reminding you of the dynamics of evolution, both of life and of the environment that life exists in. Natural radiation causes mutations and survival of the fittest, predator/prey, posits a necessary advance from primitive to sophisticated life forms.

Life is not static, nor is any facet of the Universe, it is ever changing and requires that any life evolve and adapt, which inevitably and logically must lead to 'intelligent' life.

Your second sentence as well, intelligence does imply curiosity and exploration, what is over the next hill, beyond the deep blue sea and out into the Universe is not exclusive to man, it is a determining factor of life itself.

Your third assertion is half correct. Yes, 80 light years of our radio emissions may not have informed anyone of our existence. However...our technical abilities can virtually go back in time billions of years to observe radio magnetic impulses that might have been created by other civilizations but we have observed none; nada, zilch...

As Newtonian Physics remain constant throughout the Universe (quantum physics another discussion), then the natural progression of intelligent life would include the development of the use of radio waves, and theirs, like ours, would be broadcast into space for all to receive.

Sagan was a Liberal and an atheist and stated that it was human arrogance to even think we were special in the vastness of the Universe. I tended to agree with his thoughts, and still do to some extent, but the lack of evidence....which leads to my final assertion:

Without evidence of a God, there is no God...without evidence of other intelligent life in the Universe...there is none.

Every civilization would have discovered 'Marconi' wave propogation, just as we did, as physics dictate, and had they done so, we are capable of detecting those waves as far back in time as they may have been created...there are none.

regards...

Amicus

 

[stephen55]

The existence of life does not imply intelligent life. Intelligent life does not imply an interest or capability to contact us. Interest and capability of alien life to contact us doesn't imply they have found us yet since our own emissions have only traveled 80 light years or so by now ...

I agree.

There are about 1.7 million known species on Earth and one million of those species are insects. Only one species has figured out how to communicate across space, let alone go there. Any extra-solar civilization listening in on our solar system for a sign of intelligent life prior to the twentieth century would have been met with silence.

Chimpanzees and dolphins are intelligent but they can hardly listen for or contact civilizations on distant planets. And as Stephen Hawking pointed out, contact between Europeans and native Americans didn't work out so well for the native Americans. Any distant civilization that might receive signals from Earth may very well choose to ignore them. If the signal is an episode of The Glenn Beck Show, any intelligent civilization would remain quiet...very quiet...

 

[amicus]

Marlow...no to be argumentative or even confrontational, but because we seem to interpret factual information differently:

The magnetosphere of Mars is tiny, but three meters under the soil or 6 centimeters under water are both safe from solar and cosmic radiation. Simple life living in Martian lakes could be similar to the life in giant lakes under kilometers of ice in Antarctica. Humans could live under the Martian surface in much the way humans live in Antarctica for prolonged periods.

"Gravity" is provided by acceleration and deceleration with periods of exercise using bungie cords in between. A spinning vessel could also provide "gravity." This is physics 101 stuff. Did you never see "2001: A Space Odyssey?" It's space scenes are very realistic.

~~~

Yes....there are patches of magnetic forces left over from when Mars had a magnetosphere, but they are not sufficient to protect a human from radiation.

Living underground is a possibility but there is a caveat, the surface material on both Mars and the Moon are radioactive. There have been several Science Channel programs addressing the difficulties of establishing a Base on the Moon or Mars, and they are monumental.

One could create hydroponic ponds underground, but where would you find the water or the nutrients and the light? Yes, a nuclear power plant for electricity; there may be frozen H2O in the Polar Regions, but how to recover it and how to deal with the radioactivity?

You don't have to be nasty with Physics 101, creating artificial gravity through centrifugal force is possible although technically challenging, especially on the duration of a Mars voyage and you are still left with the problem of shielding humans from radiation, acknowledging weight requirements...such a safe shelter would have to be very small and used only when a spike in radiation happened.

There are many studies on zero gravity effects on humans, but no studies on the effects of Mars gravity or the Moon's, both of which are much less than one G.

There are vast deposits of Titanium and Helium 3 on the surface of the Moon, but logic tells me that these resources, if tapped at all, will be accomplished by robotic missions, not men in machines.

I wish I could believe as you do, but reality demands otherwise. Extended human habitation of Mars or the Moon is not a viable option, besides...for what reason would it be done?

You may, of course, believe whatever you wish about anything, and if it pleases you to believe that there is oodles and oodles of life out there, then fine, do so. But aside from permutations and combinations, numbers, statistical models and fabricated equations, offer one single shred of actual evidence that confirms any life outside the Earth.

Amicus Veritas

 

[stephen55]

You may, of course, believe whatever you wish about anything, and if it pleases you to believe that there is oodles and oodles of life out there, then fine, do so. But aside from permutations and combinations, numbers, statistical models and fabricated equations, offer one single shred of actual evidence that confirms any life outside the Earth.

Amicus Veritas

Imagine an Earth-like planet on the far side of the universe. Imagine a species similar to humans at roughly the same place in their intellectual and technological development. What evidence would they have that life exists here on Earth?

While there is not yet any slam dunk evidence of life outside of Earth, always remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The universe is a very large place.

As for offering a single shred of evidence, can you give any evidence that life on Earth originated on Earth? It either did or it didn't, but no one yet knows with certainty.

 

[amicus]

Imagine an Earth-like planet on the far side of the universe. Imagine a species similar to humans at roughly the same place in their intellectual and technological development. What evidence would they have that life exists here on Earth?

While there is not yet any slam dunk evidence of life outside of Earth, always remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The universe is a very large place.

As for offering a single shred of evidence, can you give any evidence that life on Earth originated on Earth? It either did or it didn't, but no one yet knows with certainty.[/QUOTE]

~~~

Well, finally, a decent Post from you, Stephen, I will probably regret saying that, but you do present a challenge and I appreciate that.

Your first paragraph is truth, we couldn't know about them, they couldn't know about us, because of the constant speed of light and thus communications.

Your second paragraph is philosophically problematical. The rational human being has only one method of acquiring knowledge and that is by observing the evidence concerning the existence of any object or phenomenon.

Two hundred years of Philosophers and Theologians have postulated the existence of a Supreme Being based on the supposition that life must have a beginning and a purpose, the Watchmaker, et cetera. You offer the same argument concerning life in the Universe, and perhaps there is a sneaky God who is hiding from us and perhaps there are lifeforms that didn't put out a squeak for the past 13.5 Billion years...perhaps...?

I prefer...no, I choose, to base my knowledge on fact; not supposition.

Your third assertion is flimsy at best, and not relevant. All the 'ologies' Paleontology, Archeology, whatever, have confirmed evolution as a fact, not a theory. It is of no concern whether life originated in some primordial 'soup' on planet Earth, or arrived via a meteor, or meteorite or asteroid as the final ingredient to initiate the process of life.

My continued presence on this forum and others, is based on the slim hope of discovering a kindred soul who is as in awe of the process of 'life' as I am, and as entranced with the pursuit of knowledge concerning our existence and our nature.

Thus far, after seven years, or is it eight, it is only a process of responding to challenges concerning my premises; no one, not a single person, has offered an advance on my quest to learn more about the reality we live in.

Aristotle once said, and I paraphrase, 'there is much yet to understand...', I feel the same way some 2400 years later...ain't that a gas?

Amicus Veritas

 

[stephen55]

I offered no argument about the presence of life outside of Earth. I merely pointed out that a lack of evidence about something doesn't qualify as an argument to say that the something doesn't exist.

Radioactivity was first discovered in 1896 by the French scientist Henri Becquerel. That hardly means that prior to 1896, radioactivity didn't exist. Similarly, pointing out that so far there is no concrete evidence for extra-terrestrial life, hardly means that it is non-existent.

As for...

It is of no concern whether life originated in some primordial 'soup' on planet Earth, or arrived via a meteor, or meteorite or asteroid as the final ingredient to initiate the process of life.

...I disagree. Discovering solid evidence of extra-terrestrial life would be world changing. Discovering that life on Earth didn't even originate here would be an even greater shake-up.

Life on Earth exists. How it arose is beyond me, but it did come to be. I can't think of any reason to believe that it could only develop once in an entire universe.

 

[amicus]

I offered no argument about the presence of life outside of Earth. I merely pointed out that a lack of evidence about something doesn't qualify as an argument to say that the something doesn't exist.

Radioactivity was first discovered in 1896 by the French scientist Henri Becquerel. That hardly means that prior to 1896, radioactivity didn't exist. Similarly, pointing out that so far there is no concrete evidence for extra-terrestrial life, hardly means that it is non-existent.

As for...

It is of no concern whether life originated in some primordial 'soup' on planet Earth, or arrived via a meteor, or meteorite or asteroid as the final ingredient to initiate the process of life.

...I disagree. Discovering solid evidence of extra-terrestrial life would be world changing. Discovering that life on Earth didn't even originate here would be an even greater shake-up.

Life on Earth exists. How it arose is beyond me, but it did come to be. I can't think of any reason to believe that it could only develop once in an entire universe.[/QUOTE]

~~~

"...I offered no argument about the presence of life outside of Earth. I merely pointed out that a lack of evidence about something doesn't qualify as an argument to say that the something doesn't exist."

Think about what you said above for a moment while I compose my response...

We are discussing epistemology here, of which I am sure you must be aware. The definition of which is:

"...the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity"

Knowledge can only be gained by the rational function of the human mind that observes reality and conceptualizes and abstracts that information. There is no other path to knowledge.

There is a small merit in your assertion that the lack of evidence of extraterrestrial life does not state that it does not exist, but think for a moment and forget that Amicus is challenging you and accept this as an intellectual query.

Why not postulate a parallel universe, why not God, why not multiple universes? Why not a million other suppositions?

Science is open ended but not subject to contradictions; we can learn and expand our knowledge, but only based on the absolute truths that we have discovered.

My quest for knowledge does not permit me to speculate or imagine the existence of existents beyond my knowledge. I can do those things, if I choose; I can 'believe' in a God, or life beyond Earth, or anything I can imagine, but what I 'know' my 'knowledge' must be supported by objective evidence, or I have no claim to 'truth' and must join the rest of the 'subjective' population who believes their particular vision of reality is truth.

I will not fall into the category of 'agnostic', of which I am sure you must be aware and thus, I am logically left with accepting only that which I can prove, as knowledge. It is not possible there is a God, but it is possible there is other life in the Universe. Capiche?

Your second paragraph is a rhetorical argument, which can be solved by understanding the simple equation, A is A, a thing either is, or is not. Our perception of it does not alter its' existence.

Your last bit presents a dilemma, a conundrum, of sorts...if it could happen here, it could happen anywhere, yeah, maybe, but not conclusive, only speculation.

An unique human sperm meets an unique human ovum (ova?) and a one time singularity occurs. Debate that?

If a new and unique human life comes into being, why not a singularity of circumstances for life itself? (quote me on that and earn your Pulitzer) Something entirely new and different in the Universe?

I have no idea as to how much you 'know' about cutting edge science; you may be operating on belief or wishful thinking, but I do not. It is only in the past hundred years, and I am being generous, that we could even frame the questions about our existence and that of the Universe.

All my learning screams at me that there must be billions and billions of intelligent civilizations out there; but there is simply no evidence, not a shred.

When evidence arrives, I will consider it. Until then, lacking evidence, I can but state the obvious: there is no evidence of extraterrestrial life in the Universe.

Argue with that?

Amicus Veritas

 

[stephen55]

I thought that we were going back and forth on the possibility of extra-terrestrial life. Epistemology, defined narrowly as the study of knowledge and justified belief, has little to do with it. We are discussing speculation here, not knowledge or justified belief.

Science is open ended but not subject to contradictions; we can learn and expand our knowledge, but only based on the absolute truths that we have discovered.

How do you come up with this stuff? Science is science precisely because it is subject to contradiction. If something cannot be tested, subjected to refutation or otherwise falsified, then it isn't science.

What absolute (scientific) truths are you referring to?

A scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered strictly certain as science accepts the concept of fallibilism. The philosopher of science Karl Popper sharply distinguishes truth from certainty. He writes that scientific knowledge "consists in the search for truth", but it "is not the search for certainty ... All human knowledge is fallible and therefore uncertain."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

But then, Richard Feynman once said..."Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds."


Why not a singularity of circumstances for life itself? I think a better question is "why a singularity of circumstances for life itself". If it can happen here, why only here? This is speculation...agreed...but speculation is at the very heart of science. Asking "what is this stuff?" is a good question. Asking "why is this stuff the way it is?" is a better question. Answering that question begins with speculation. "Well, maybe this is the reason why." Then you go about finding out if you're right or wrong.

It is only in the past hundred years, and I am being generous, that we could even frame the questions about our existence and that of the Universe.

The questions have been asked for millennia. The answers today may be more accurate from a scientific point of view, but the questions go back to our cave dwelling ancestors.

Until then, lacking evidence, I can but state the obvious: there is no evidence of extraterrestrial life in the Universe.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Our perception of something does not alter its existence, as you have stated. That said, if something exists, our lack of perception of it does not alter its existence either.

Are there any extra-terrestrial civilizations out there? The lack of evidence doesn't bother me one bit. The answer is either yes or no. In the meantime, I will continue to speculate.

 

[amicus]

You referencing Karl Popper is like me referencing Ayn Rand, we both reject the others assertions.

Your objection to 'absolutes' is a philosophical one, it has to be and I understand that. But common sense, reason and rationality dictates that science is and always has been founded on absolute, emperical, concrete evidence. The laws of Geometry or the Laws of Physics; every applied discipline of every science, is based of objective fact and you know it.

I understand why you must reject axiomatic or self evident truths to maintain the subjectivity of your arguments in both the concrete and abstract worlds of thought; but do you not see how transparent that is?

The irritation I always feel when debating with someone who truly believes there are no absolutes, is brought about by their usual superior attitude concerning the admission of ignorance of fact, as a virtue. You may think it is of value to state that you do not 'know' anything, that everything is subjective and relevant and ever changing, but in reality, it leaves you without a foundation to build on in any aspect of existence.

There is no God.

Amicus Veritas

 

[stephen55]

American physicist and Nobel laureate Richard Feynman had no patience for philosophers of science such as Karl Popper because he had no patience for philosophers period. He was too busy doing his thing, which was pursuing quantum physics in general and quantum electrodynamics in particular.

You may reject Popper's assertion that to be science, an idea or theory must be subject to falsification as you wish. That doesn't change the fact that Popper is correct. Propose any untestable idea about anything in science and you'll be reminded that philosophy and theology are down the hall, out the door and you should be as well.

I know you can't or won't accept that there is no such thing as an absolute truth in science because you won't accept that science doesn't deal in absolute truths. That sort of thing is outside of science because an absolute truth is unverifiable. Science deals with theories to explain reality. A theory is always open to testing. A simple fact can be tested but that is trivial. If you want to call a simple fact an absolute truth, go ahead, but don't expect any applause from your local scientist.

You mentioned the laws of geometry. Geometry is a branch of mathematics, not of science. Mathematicians invent all kinds of things outside of reality, square roots of negative numbers for example. While math is a good language to use in describing scientific ideas, it is outside of science. Science deals with physical reality. Mathematics deals with something else entirely.

Euclid laid out his Elements over two thousand years ago. His ideas on geometry were held as being perfect and immutable. I'm assuming you're referring to Euclidean geometry when you mentioned laws of geometry. Along came Gauss and then Reimann who showed that there are many geometries apart from Euclid. Einstein's general relativity exists only because of Reimann geometry.

Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation...oops...it's a good approximation and it's not universal.

General relativity isn't the last word on gravitation either and Einstein himself was well aware.

Darwinian evolution seems to be holding up quite well but all it would take to blow it out of the water would be a single fossilized rabbit from the pre-Cambrian.

My objection to scientific absolute truths isn't a philosophical one. Rather, it's a scientific objection. Science builds on empirical evidence, but no working scientist would ever confuse empirical evidence with absolute truth.

While objective facts are important to science, they are not by themselves interesting or all that important to the advance of theory. A collection of facts is boring. Science is all about explaining the facts in terms of an organizing and coherent theory. The why and the how are so much more important than the what.

Facts become interesting when they cast doubt on theory. They become very interesting when they show theory to be wrong. Scientists love it when facts don't agree with theory. It means there is more work to be done. If science was about absolute truths, facts would always match theory. That would be boring. Fortunately, absolute truth is outside of science, which is what makes science so interesting.

 

[stephen55]

The irritation I always feel when debating with someone who truly believes there are no absolutes, is brought about by their usual superior attitude concerning the admission of ignorance of fact, as a virtue. You may think it is of value to state that you do not 'know' anything, that everything is subjective and relevant and ever changing, but in reality, it leaves you without a foundation to build on in any aspect of existence.
Amicus Veritas

If I tried hard enough, I'm sure I could come up with a few absolutes that I have faith in. Proper grammar comes to mind.

If I tried hard enough, I'm sure I could come up with a few absolutes, in which I have faith. That gold is denser than water comes to mind. North America is a continent bounded in part, by three oceans is another. Of course if we wait long enough, North America may become bounded only by three oceans, so I'll take that one back.

I know a lot of facts. Where is the virtue in that? Facts are like words. If you're unsure of one, just look it up. You'll increase your store of factual knowledge which will get you big points when playing Jeopardy. Apart from that, facts are like clutter. They take up room and get in the way of understanding, synthesis and ultimately, wisdom.

What I don't know is easily looked up. It's what you do with knowledge that becomes important. I hardly think it is of value to be ignorant. I also hardly think it is of value to confuse facts with understanding.

I never said that everything is subjective, relevant and ever changing. What I will say is that apart from simple facts, like the density of gold, things do change. You write a lot about absolute truths, usually adding in something about human freedom and liberty, which you believe in passionately. So do I. You cannot accept that ideals can change. (Fixed it.) I can. Ideals exist only in the human mind and when the human mind becomes intransigent, fixed and unable to change, we'll be back in the Dark Ages.

Change is good.

http://cdn.babble.com/family-style/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/rafiki.jpg

Even this guy knows that.

 

[amicus]

A well crafted and literate defense of subjectivism and your style is appreciated.

It seems no one else is following this discussion; just as well, few would see the abyssmal conflict between us or realize the importance of resolution.

At stake, whether you realize it or not, and I would guess that you do, as you persist, is the ability of the mind of man to perceive truth as it exists, independent of the mind. The old 'dualism' argument that seems never to dissipate.

It is for that reason, I suggest, that you attempt to divorce Philosophy from science, and egads, even Mathematics from Science. Philosophy is that which gives purpose and ethics to science and is therefore integral, or you end up with scientists willing creating biological and chemical weapons just for the hell of it.

Science without mathematics doesn't exist; even you have to use your fingers to count and mathematics includes logic which forms the boundary for Science.

What you apparently propose as 'pure' science, simply can't exist, has never existed and never will exist and should never exist. Science without reason or purpose or ethics is a fool's errand into insanity.

"...I know you can't or won't accept that there is no such thing as an absolute truth in science because you won't accept that science doesn't deal in absolute truths..."

Of course I disagree. Science is based on and deals only with absolute truths.

Einstein was a Physicist; gee I hope Physics qualifies as a 'science' in your mind; he predicted that mass had a causal effect on passing light. All in his pointy little head he figured it out, but it took years and years before his 'theory' could be proven as fact, as truth.

"...Darwinian evolution seems to be holding up quite well but all it would take to blow it out of the water would be a single fossilized rabbit from the pre-Cambrian..."

You attempt to muddy the waters for the casual reader. Evolution is merely the process of change from the simple to the complex, or even de-evolution, from the large to the small, as in dwarf mammoths as the Ice Age approached. It is the process that is truth and absolute, and holds true for nebulae or the evolution of a Star, a solar system or a galaxy.

Man's search for truth is that quest that makes us different from all other species and that which gives us the dignity of existence and the purpose of life.

I do not wish to make this personal and that is not my attention, but over the past few years I have had an increasing exposure to Medical Doctors, and me being who I am, I ask questions, all kinds of them. I have great respect for the Profession, but I also detect a 'world weariness' by those who daily associate with human life and death, suffering and pain. I also pay heed to my daughter, who is a practicing Psychiatrist and I sense that same 'weariness' in her perceptions.

You might address that...objectively...if you wish.

Reading again your last few paragraphs; you present a very sophisticated and clever renunciation of Objectivism and I once again puzzle myself as to why one would do so.

You seem to relegate science to the status of an isolated endeavor by highly intelligent and focused individuals who are totally disconnected from the realities of life, philosophy, ethics, mathematics and morality.

More than that, and perhaps worse than that, you imply a subjectivity and a relativity to existence that is destructive to rational congruent thought and action by individuals.

As I am quite aware of your political tendencies, and I am beginning to comprehend your disassociation of the individual from the truth of his existence as an effort to justify the 'scientific' adherence to collective or group behavior. Were you able to do so, that would fit in nicely with your world view.

This is of importance, I think, which is why I continue to pursue your thoughts.

Without a Theological explanation of existence, man must turn to his mind to find purpose and meaning in life. By rejecting not only moral and ethical absolutes, but scientific ones as well, you create a chasm between faith and knowledge that cannot be bridged.

I begin to suspect that is the refuge of the elite intellectuals; a refusal to find faith and a denial that existence has meaning.

What is not obvious is the impact this philosophy has on art and literature and even music as it applies to the common man. I could care less about drug-ridden intellectuals in their hedonistic journeys, but I do care about the vision and the sense of life that has permeated an entire culture.

Amicus

 

[amicus]

I thought at last another had replied, but you double dipped on me as I was composing my own response.

"I never said that everything is subjective, relevant and ever changing. What I will say is that apart from simple facts, like the density of gold, things do change. You write a lot about absolute truths, usually adding in something about human freedom and liberty, which you believe in passionately. So do I. You cannot accept that ideals are unchanging. I can. Ideals exist only in the human mind and when the human mind becomes intransigent, fixed and unable to change, we'll be back in the Dark Ages.

Change is good.

~~~

Change is not always good.

Human ideals are unchanging, they have remained constant since the species evolved. Ideals exist in reality; try eating a lunch of Granite or Balsalt and see how far you get.

If we head in your direction of herd behavior, we won't just be back in the Dark Ages, we will go extinct.

We exist as individuals.

Amicus

 

[stephen55]

Ami, it's like this. I wasn't justifying subjectivism. I was trying (unsuccessfully) to once again, educate you on the difference between what science is and what you think it is.

I am not a philosopher. Having and having read a few philosophical texts doesn't make me a philosopher. I'm a retired backwoods country doctor who earned a B.Sc. and a M.Sc. in biochemistry before going into medicine. While that doesn't make me a scientist, I do claim a certain background in science.

Science is science. Philosophy is philosophy. Mathematics is mathematics. While there are overlaps, particularly between math and physics, it's only because physics deals with mass and forces, which are easiest to describe in mathematical terms. That doesn't mean that physics can't be described in everyday English.

Richard Feynman, mentioned earlier, was know to have said that if a physicist couldn't explain a physics concept to a bartender in plain English, in a way the bartender could understand, then the physicist didn't really understand the concept in the first place. (Feynman liked spending time in bars. If the bar had strippers...so much the better.)

Science without mathematics has always existed. Even at the masters level in biochemistry I never went beyond simple arithmetic to deal with the kinetics of enzymatic rates. My guess is that you have little or no idea about the difference between arithmetic and mathematics. Arithmetic can be done with calculators and even computers. Mathematics is done solely with the mind. Computers can solve very complex problems in number crunching but that is just arithmetic written large.

As for evolution, I think you missed my point. J. B. S. Haldane, an eminent biologist was once asked by a fundamentalist Christian, what it would take for him to renounce evolution. His answer was "a fossilized rabbit from the pre-Cambrian."

The point that was lost on the fundamentalist (and on you) is that in science, a useful theory does not only explain a set of facts, it also makes predictions. If a prediction from a theory is tested and found to be false, the theory goes out the window. Darwinian evolution clearly predicts there will be no rabbit fossils found in pre-Cambrian rock as mammals evolved well after the pre-Cambrian era. If a genuine rabbit fossil from pre-Cambrian rock is found, Darwinian evolution is false. End of Darwinian evolution.

Well I doubt that any mammalian paleontologist will ever predict pre-Cambrian rabbits, all it would take to blow evolution out of the water would be one such (genuine) fossilized rabbit. It's the essence of science. If a discovered empirical fact contradicts theory, so much for the theory. Or as Thomas Henry Huxley wrote, “Science is organized common sense where many a beautiful theory was killed by an ugly fact.”

Science is what it is. It's not the absolute truth seeking, philosophically driven process of moving from one fundamental ideal truth to the next fundamental ideal truth that you think it is.

Science is a human endeavor. And as with most things human, it is fraught with mistakes, unjustified suppositions, leaping to wrong conclusions and generally making fools of otherwise brilliant people.

Einstein, for his own personal and preconceived ideas, thought that the universe was essentially static and unchanging. Shortly after the publishing of his general theory of relativity, Alexander Alexandrovich Friedman, in Russia, had a look and realized that the theory would only stand if the universe was either contracting or expanding. When Einstein read of Friedman's work, he added a term (lamda, or the cosmological constant) to his field equations that would hold the universe static. Then in 1929, Edwin Hubble, advancing the work of Vesto Slipher, found that the universe is indeed expanding.

Einstein, when he was convinced of the reality of Hubble's data, admitted that the universe was expanding and said that his lamda term was the biggest blunder if his career. He went on to say, "Two things are infinite; the universe and human stupidity...and I'm not so sure about the universe."

Fast forward to the present. Dark energy and an accelerating expansion of the universe just might show that Albert got it right all along. The only problem being that if he got it right, it was for the wrong reason. Isn't science wonderful?

 

[stephen55]

Science is based on and deals only with absolute truths.

Einstein was a Physicist; gee I hope Physics qualifies as a 'science' in your mind; he predicted that mass had a causal effect on passing light. All in his pointy little head he figured it out, but it took years and years before his 'theory' could be proven as fact, as truth.
Amicus

My guess is that your inability to think like a scientist is because you never did any science beyond high school. By thinking like a scientist, I simply mean accepting that there are limits to science and to what science can and cannot accomplish.

I'm also reasonably sure you can't or won't accept that "absolute truths" may belong somewhere, but science isn't that place. Granted, if you continue to equate simple fact with absolute truth, then your absolute truths are everywhere. But then, they would also be trivial.

The reason science doesn't deal in absolute truths (one more time...) is that science only deals with what in reality (nature) is testable and can be shown to be true or false. What is considered true today very well may be shown to be false tomorrow. That's why absolute truths are not part of science (and I'm not sure about their place in philosophy either...) Let's use Einstein and his ideas about gravity (general relativity) as an example.

Aristotle said that objects fall to the ground because it is their nature to be closest to the earth. His ideas were accepted as gospel until Newton published his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica back in 1687. His idea that gravity was a force proportional to the product of the two involved masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the masses, was a gem. It was also wrong and no one knew that better than Newton himself. However, it was so close to being right that NASA still uses Newtonian mechanics to plan spacecraft trajectories clear out to the edge of the solar system. In a lot of science, close to being right is about as good as it gets. Newtonian gravity is not and never was an absolute truth.

In 1916 Einstein published his work on general relativity. He replaced Newton's idea that space is a rigid and unchanging three dimensional background grid with his own idea that four dimensional spacetime is a flexible and malleable entity and that gravity is the curving of spacetime in response to the four-momentum (mass-energy and linear momentum) of whatever matter and radiation are present.

Rab -1/2 RGab = kTab ...that's Einstein's simplest field equation for general relativity. It looks harmless enough...

It explains some phenomena that Newton's gravity couldn't explain such as the amount of advance in the precession of the orbit of Mercury (anomalous perihelion shift). It also predicted that the mass of the sun should cause a very slight degree of curvature to the path of light when said light passes close to the sun. (Newtonian gravity also predicts that mass will cause light to curve; not as much curving as general relativity predicts...but that's another story.)

BTW, that particular prediction was quickly tested by Arthur Eddington during the solar eclipse of 29 May 1919 and found to be true. As far as I know, every test of general relativity to date has shown that general relativity holds up.

Does that make general relativity an absolute truth? No, it doesn't and if Einstein were still here, he would say so himself. While general relativity is closer to being true than Newtonian gravity, it isn't the end of the discussion. General relativity breaks down under certain conditions such as explaining gravity at the quantum level. It also isn't an absolute truth but it's very good science.

Sooner or later some bright physicist will come up with a workable theory of quantum gravity and it will reign supreme as the very, very close to being true theory of gravitation...until some brighter physicist comes up with an even better idea...and so on...

http://www.ourscreendoor.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/farside-12.jpg

Another BTW...Einstein didn't figure out general relativity all in his pointy little head. While he did come up with the idea of explaining gravity as a geometrification (non-Euclidian elliptical Reimann geometry) of four dimentional spacetime, he was hopelessly in over his head when it came to the mathematics needed to describe it all. For that, he turned to his friend and real mathematician, Marcel Grossman. While Einstein was a brilliant theoretical physicist, who excelled at thinking outside of the box, he sucked at higher math. His math prof at the Eidgenössische Polytechnische Schule (ETH) in Zurich, Hermann Minkowski, called Einstein "a lazy dog".

Grossman was much better at physics than Einstein was at math. In fact, Grossman was able to figure out what Einstein was up to with general relativity and he came very close to publishing the theory before Einstein. He actually lectured on it before Einstein had published.

 

[amicus]

Sighs...I did go a little more into Math than High School, propogation theory for radio waves enough to build my own amateur equipement and antennas and I was fortunate to have a Nuclear Physicist walk me through Linear Algebra so I under follow his Thesis on Radiation protection, but, yes, all practicle things, not like your view of cerebral musings.

That is just an ice-breaker introduction for any possilbe lurkers to this ongoing conversation, as little I have to offer is of interest to you.

Far from the isolation of disciplines, Science, with a large 'S', should and must incorporate all fields of knowledge, and is in fact, by definitiion, a category of Philosophy, and exists as a sub category of thought.

As with Physics and Mathematics, Science is but another tool to assist the human quest for knowledge and understanding of the reality we inhabit.

Disastrous for Science is the deep involvement by government which directs and funds research according to the desires of the government, be it Chinese, Russian, British or American. I would much prefer corporate funding of Science and/or Philanthropic funding to insure diversity in both the research and developmental stages of discovery.

As we know all too well, government seldom if ever includes a moral or ethical consideration when funding research; it always has an umbrella and an underpinning of agenda and some of it not very pretty and all of it on a cost/benefit ratio with the human factor removed.

The search for true and absolute knowledge demands cognizance of all disciplines of human endeavor and without such, becomes more a danger to human society than a benefit.

The 'flaw' in my perspective and perhaps your world view, is an acknowledgement that total dedication is required by an individual seeking cutting edge knowledge in any discipline. I express but a logical conundrum; one person devoting every possible waking moment to one discipline will, by definition, acquire greater knowledge than another person dividing his time between two or more avenues towards knowledge.

One can also deduct the corollary that the person devoting full time to one, must, by definition, remain unknowing or 'ignorant' of any other discipline.

The 'absent minded professor' colloquialism references my thesis above and is somewhat a fact of the pursuit of knowledge.

Call me a 'generalist' or whatever you may, but I am not suited to learning the plumbers code and working on pipes all my life anymore than I am suited to learn the atronomers code and spend countless hours looking through a telescope or creating models of computer projections. I enjoy and prefer 'cherry picking' the life results of those who do that singular 'nose-to-the' grindstone data, and attempting to merge the results of all the disciplines into one unified theory of knowledge...which is...Philosophy.

Amicus

 

[stephen55]

Far from the isolation of disciplines, Science, with a large 'S', should and must incorporate all fields of knowledge, and is in fact, by definitiion, a category of Philosophy, and exists as a sub category of thought.
Amicus

*chuckle*

Things make so much sense when you make up your own definitions.

Astrology is a field of knowledge. Personally, I think it's a crackpot field of knowledge, but it is a body of knowledge. The Absolute Truths of Astrology...if that book hasn't been written, I'm sure that there are astrology books that come close.

Science, with a large 'S', should and must incorporate astrology...

(Yup, yup, yup...)

...and is (astrology) in fact, by definition, a category of Philosophy, and exists as a sub category of thought.

I will leave it as an exercise to our fellow Litsters to substitute other fields of knowledge for astrology in order to have a few chuckles of their own.

How about Scientology...The Book of Mormon...the Flat Earth Society...Ayn Rand on the pathogenesis of cancer...

Ami, the more you try to sound profound, the sillier you look.
Seriously...you're embarrassing...

There are a host of books on what science is and isn't. You might want to start with What is this thing called Science? (Chalmers A. F., Open University Press, 3rd., 1999)

You'll love it. Chalmers isn't a working scientist. He's a professor of The History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Sydney.

It opens with a quote from Lawrence Durell's Clea

"Like all young men I started out to be a genius, but mercifully laughter intervened."

*chuckle*