|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 06/13/2005 : 12:51:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by markie
BTW, do you know offhand what the maximum observed redshift from starlight should be, according to big bang theory?
Given that the CMB comes from a time long before there were any stars, "1,089" springs to mind as an absolute maximum, even without looking anything up. Obviously, the real maximum is going to depend on how long it took - theoretically - for the first stars to form after the CMB was released.
IIRC, according to several cosmology sites I have searched on this subject, the maximum redshift observable is approaching 3c. Anything above that cannot be observed. I think that was discussed in the Astronomy section discussion entitled Universe's dress size is 156 B LY. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 06/13/2005 12:53:58 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2005 : 12:59:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Giltwist
Granted, primates are social, but not on a species wide level.
As is also true of human beings.quote:
See here: http://homepage.mac.com/casewright/essays/plato.html
It's about the world of Shapes vs. the world of Forms, if that helps.
Well, it tells me that Socrates (or at least Plato) seems to be full of crap. It's analogous to people breaking out of "the Matrix," and assuming that what they then experience is "the real world." But they don't know that, and the fact that there was a Matrix ought to ensure that they treat the next-higher level of "reality" even less like it is "Reality."
There are certain assumptions which can't be avoided. No matter how much we test this reality, we can't prove that it represents Reality.quote:
Granted, but don't we have gun control legislature because we know guns tend to get abused?
Scientists largely police themselves. Can you, for example, name a scientific fraud which was discovered by a non-scientist?quote:
Now, I'll admit that I am as bad as everyone else when it comes to taking the easy way out so that such thoughts don't consume me, but how do you, as a skeptic, separate the assumptions that are okay to use and the assumptions that aren't?
The ones which are okay to use are the ones which we can't avoid, just to be able to converse, even. Like the idea that there exists an objective reality. All others require justification. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2005 : 13:15:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I suppose that the term "going strong" is relative to where it was in the past. When "going strong" means that a living cell has been created in the lab, you'll have my full attention.quote:
Unfortunately, you're not going to give your attention, even then. You'll blow it off as a purposeful act by man, and continue to say that such isn't evidence that a bunch of molecules got together by themselves billions of years ago. The two things are apples and oranges, after all.
Well I see 'evidence' that mindreading has not evolved very far yet ;)
Actually I happen to have a personal belief that cellular life was (and can only be) initiated by supermaterial beings and influences, so if it turns out that scientists do create cellular life in the lab I *will* be paying attention and shall surely abandon that particular belief.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2005 : 13:41:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
Well I see 'evidence' that mindreading has not evolved very far yet ;)
And I still believe that you are fooling yourself regarding your conviction that scientists creating life will change your mind. After all, it'll just be some sorta life, and not necessarily that which possibly led to everything else on Earth. And if it is "inferior" in any way, you'll be able to save your beliefs (as described below), simply by asserting that it's not complex enough to explain the evolution of humans (for example).quote:
Actually I happen to have a personal belief that cellular life was (and can only be) initiated by supermaterial beings and influences, so if it turns out that scientists do create cellular life in the lab I *will* be paying attention and shall surely abandon that particular belief.
From whence does such a belief arise? And from whence did the "supermaterial beings" arise? What the heck is a "supermaterial being," anyway? What the heck is a "supermaterial influence?" |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2005 : 17:54:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
And I still believe that you are fooling yourself regarding your conviction that scientists creating life will change your mind. After all, it'll just be some sorta life, and not necessarily that which possibly led to everything else on Earth. And if it is "inferior" in any way, you'll be able to save your beliefs (as described below), simply by asserting that it's not complex enough to explain the evolution of humans (for example).
I hear that microbiologists have experimented with some bacteria by excising segments of DNA in order to produce a viable organism with the least amount of DNA possible. I think that is cool. So biologists have a sense of what kind of minimum requirements to aim for, for life. Those kinds of minimum requirements would do. (Things like viruses (which are little more than molecular bots imo) and prions, etc, don't count in my books as life.))
Essentially I'm looking for a viable organism with a cell membrane, DNA/RNA and protoplasm and any necessary associated material, that's all. (It doesn't have to exhibit the ability to grow in complexity over generations, only metabolize, reproduce, etc.) And made from non living scratch. By 'made', I wouldn't object if, say, the DNA loop and sequence was carefully constructed in a machine. After all the parts have been created, put it all together in a cell membrane, jolt it, or whatever, and see if it comes alive. If it does I shall eat my humble pie, and gratefully.
quote:
From whence does such a belief arise? And from whence did the "supermaterial beings" arise? What the heck is a "supermaterial being," anyway? What the heck is a "supermaterial influence?"
Well at the risk of offending a skeptical audience, something that is supermaterial would be something that transcends what we think of as 'material'. "Mind" would be a general case of that which is a supermaterial influence. I say "supermaterial" rather than "supernatural" because I don't want to convey the idea that "mind" is above nature and natural law. I would rather include mind in with what nature is, although mind it is not of material essence. (Although in our case it is very greatly dependent on the material brain.) So to me nature and natural law itself is both material and supermaterial. Thus what we might conceive of as a 'miracle' is simply higher, more supermaterial, law applied. Crude analogy: Bernoulie's principle working on the wings of an airplane create the 'miracle' of flight, but we know of course that in the process no law is violated. Rather, a less known law is superimposed over a more familiar one, producing an unexpected result. Life would result from the application of higher laws upon the lower laws of physics and chemistry.
Supermaterial beings would be, in large part, created, non biolgical-evolutionary beings. There would be a gigantic spectrum of such beings, as they fulfill their particular (often creative) purposes in the universe. Genesis' "God created..." would represent a gross oversimplification of the process, imo. But then, I also think we're relative simpletons in the scale of things.
|
|
|
|
Giltwist
Skeptic Friend
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2005 : 18:54:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
As is also true of human beings.
Then why do we try to make laws that are universally applicable to humanity?
quote:
Well, it tells me that Socrates (or at least Plato) seems to be full of crap. It's analogous to people breaking out of "the Matrix," and assuming that what they then experience is "the real world." But they don't know that, and the fact that there was a Matrix ought to ensure that they treat the next-higher level of "reality" even less like it is "Reality."
Ever read Flatland by A. Abbott Abbott? I think you'd like that. |
 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2005 : 19:12:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
I hear that microbiologists have experimented with some bacteria by excising segments of DNA in order to produce a viable organism with the least amount of DNA possible. I think that is cool. So biologists have a sense of what kind of minimum requirements to aim for, for life. Those kinds of minimum requirements would do. (Things like viruses (which are little more than molecular bots imo) and prions, etc, don't count in my books as life.))
Essentially I'm looking for a viable organism with a cell membrane, DNA/RNA and protoplasm and any necessary associated material, that's all. (It doesn't have to exhibit the ability to grow in complexity over generations, only metabolize, reproduce, etc.) And made from non living scratch. By 'made', I wouldn't object if, say, the DNA loop and sequence was carefully constructed in a machine. After all the parts have been created, put it all together in a cell membrane, jolt it, or whatever, and see if it comes alive. If it does I shall eat my humble pie, and gratefully.
Well, what if it is found that the first things we would think of as "life" weren't more complex than viruses? And the bacteria we know today are likely far more complicated than any of the original life here. Even cutting away bits and pieces still leaves us with something using highly complex DNA (or even RNA, since there are simpler coding self-replicators out there).
On the other hand, I take it the kid my wife and I created four years ago doesn't count as "created life," either.  Technically speaking, we did make him from scratch.quote:
Supermaterial beings would be, in large part, created, non biolgical-evolutionary beings.
What created these beings? What created their creators? What created their creators' creators? Etc.quote:
There would be a gigantic spectrum of such beings, as they fulfill their particular (often creative) purposes in the universe.
If one (or more) of these beings created the universe, where did it (or they) exist beforehand? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2005 : 19:13:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Giltwist
Then why do we try to make laws that are universally applicable to humanity?
As I said, because we can think of better lives, and act to bring those ideas into reality.quote:
Ever read Flatland by A. Abbott Abbott? I think you'd like that.
Absolutely. Wait, are you making my point for me? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Giltwist
Skeptic Friend
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2005 : 21:15:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What created these beings? What created their creators? What created their creators' creators? Etc.
Isn't that where Aquinas' unmoved mover comes into play?
quote:
Absolutely. Wait, are you making my point for me?
Hey, I never said I disagreed with the whole inability to tell when we actually hit Reality. I just said I was surprised a skeptic could live with that ;) |
|
| Edited by - Giltwist on 06/13/2005 21:16:34 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2005 : 00:41:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Now, I'll admit that I am as bad as everyone else when it comes to taking the easy way out so that such thoughts don't consume me, but how do you, as a skeptic, separate the assumptions that are okay to use and the assumptions that aren't?
If you don't accept certain assumptions, then all you have is solipsism.
For example, objective reality exists and the five senses of the human body are capable of accurately detecting it.
quote:
Isn't that where Aquinas' unmoved mover comes into play?
To bad for Aquinas that every "proof" he ever offered is logically fallacious.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2005 : 08:24:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Well, what if it is found that the first things we would think of as "life" weren't more complex than viruses? And the bacteria we know today are likely far more complicated than any of the original life here.
At least with something like a simple bacterium we at least know exactly what we have to make. With abiogenesis research into protenoids it is more a groping around in the dark, with the distinct possibility that it could never work anyways.
quote:
On the other hand, I take it the kid my wife and I created four years ago doesn't count as "created life," either. Technically speaking, we did make him from scratch.
Right, doesn't count. That kind of 'creation research' is too easy and fun ;o
quote:
Supermaterial beings would be, in large part, created, non biolgical-evolutionary beings.quote:
What created these beings? What created their creators? What created their creators' creators? Etc.
If we went far enough up the pike we would get to Absolute Personal Deity, I believe. So we would have a huge a chain of beings of differing orders, representing essentially a downstepping of reality from ultimate Spirit to mind to matter. Humanity would be about at the bottom rung, working up, as planned.
Before time and space there is either essentially void nothingness, from which reality (as we know it) and increasing complexity springs forth, or there is Something/Someone from whom reality and increasing complexity ultimately spring forth. I don't think that this in an area that science can inform us on.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2005 : 09:12:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by markie
I don't think that this in an area that science can inform us on.
No, it's not, and it is science itself which tells us that it can't inform us about anything which went on "before" the Big Bang.
The only acceptable scientific answer to such questions is "we don't know." Why is that unacceptable to you? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2005 : 09:18:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Before time and space there is either essentially void nothingness, from which reality (as we know it) and increasing complexity springs forth, or there is Something/Someone from whom reality and increasing complexity ultimately spring forth. I don't think that this in an area that science can inform us on.
You are right, and that is why science does not deal in the supernatural in any of it's myriad forms. None of it can be falsified.
I think that it not possible for us to ever know what was 'there' 'before' the Big Bang, if that is the correct hypothisis.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2005 : 09:22:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Giltwist
I just said I was surprised a skeptic could live with that ;)
Well, unless you've developed a really skewed view of skepticism, I'm surprised that you're surprised. After all, I live with our inability to determine "The Truth" about as well as I live with the fact that nobody is willing to give me a billion dollars, or with the fact that I'll never be a professional quarterback. These things are just impersonal facts, there's no need to get upset about 'em. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
markie
Skeptic Friend
Canada
356 Posts |
Posted - 06/14/2005 : 16:01:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by markie
I don't think that this in an area that science can inform us on.
No, it's not, and it is science itself which tells us that it can't inform us about anything which went on "before" the Big Bang.
The only acceptable scientific answer to such questions is "we don't know." Why is that unacceptable to you?
Actually, it is just fine with me. I don't expect science to have answers to questions like that. If we say that science rightly grasps at the truth from the material-fact side of things, then we might say that philosophy and (personal) religion grasps at the truth from the mind-meaning and spirit-value side of things.
What is unacceptable to me, personally, is the proposition that reality is nothing more than material-fact. Of course, ideal science doesn't claim that, so I don't have a problem with ideal science.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
