|
| Thread: Immortality and the definition of life |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted September 16, 2009 08:01 PM |
|
|
The problem is that there's no such thing as "knowing" with 100% certainty or else stuff would be irrefutable, which goes against scientific method. So knowing is just a subjective concept of how "strong" you believe a theory to be true (theories make predictions, that's all). Since the current one makes predictions, at least short-term definitely, I'm just basing it that I *think* it will continue like this further. Of course I can't possibly *know* because no one can (for example: what if tomorrow electromagnetism ceases to function?). I'm just basing it on the current short-term predictions and data.
Personally, I find it more likely than "changing course". This is of course subjective.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted September 16, 2009 08:37 PM |
|
|
I think this link will make you two find common agreement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Because in a way, both of you're right.
The thing is you cannot ever know anything for 100% certainity, unless you make infinite measures over infinite time, in stead of we can make probabilities. However on the same time, without knowing, or for that matter have any idea of, the equations behind the events, the probabilities we can make are of much lesser value/strength and that's why I think both of you are right.
I believe it's not that long ago (maybe 100 years or something like that), that some in the physics environment claimed that we no longer needed to know the equations behind the system, or something like that, because all we needed to do would be make enough measurements to be able to with an acceptable probability foresee future events.
Quote:
Guys, guys, guys, there's so much wrong here it's no wonder you can't have a productive conversation.
You're of course welcome to contribuate.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 16, 2009 08:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The problem is that there's no such thing as "knowing" with 100% certainty .
No, that is NOT the problem, not in this case anyway.
Just because there is an eror margin everywhere it doesn't mean that an unfounded speculation is as good as a proven causality.
There is just not enough of a foundation in this case to make definite calls like big freeze or something like that.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 16, 2009 10:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
There is just not enough of a foundation in this case to make definite calls like big freeze or something like that.
Do you realize how subjective this sounds? It isn't even quantifiable!
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 17, 2009 07:18 AM |
|
|
|
*Shrug* Useless. Everyone their religion.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 17, 2009 05:01 PM |
|
|
Well what classifies as "knowing" then? At what point? What is the instrument of measurement regarding "how much you know" something? That's why I said it's subjective because it's left to someone's interpretation of how much he knows something, or how much someone else knows something. How do you refute something that is known? What kind of experiment do you perform to show some measured data that says "you don't know anything"? What is the prediction before the experiment to begin with (regarding "knowing")?
These are all part of the scientific method.
Remember, no matter how far-fetched something may seem, if it is within bounds of experiment and predicts successfully (within margin of errors of course), then it is scientific -- even if you think the "explanation" for it is unintuitive or you don't like it, or you don't know it.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 17, 2009 05:20 PM |
|
|
Death, I DID say it already:
If you don't know what causes an effect, every "predictions" concerning that effect are PURE speculation. Especially when no active experiments are possible.
Even successful predictions are no guarantee - look at the fine predictions the very complex models of heavenly bodies' movements AROUND THE EARTH - were able to deliver. While the PREDICTIONS were right - right for what could be observed at the time and what was known about heavenly bodies and the CAUSE of their movements - the underlying theory was still wrong.
So what is needed is a theory WHY or HOW the universe is expanding.
THEN this theory must be testable: an experiment is to be devised the result of which you will have to predict.
If you cannot find an experiment to test the theory it's STILL only speculation.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 17, 2009 05:25 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 17:26, 17 Sep 2009.
|
Quote:
THEN this theory must be testable: an experiment is to be devised the result of which you will have to predict.
If you cannot find an experiment to test the theory it's STILL only speculation.
It already is, we know how it expands. The "WHY" isn't quantifiable and not necessary. We can predict how it's going to be in 5 minutes. I'm willing to bet. So we do have a theory, how it expands -- that doesn't necessarily mean it'll work in a million years, but the point here is that thinking otherwise has LESS basis since at least this one has CURRENT data.
Why does gravity pull things instead of pushing? More precisely, why does matter attract matter?
Does that mean all our theories about it should not be taken into account?
EDIT: My point around your remark is this: you say that we don't know -- for that sentence to make scientific sense, you have to quantify "whether we know or not". So I ask: how do you quantify whether we know something or not?
Because clearly, we have predictions on the expansion, so predictions aren't the answer (since you say we don't know even though we make predictions).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 17, 2009 06:47 PM |
|
|
We know nothing of that sort. We made some OBSERVATIONS, that are in itself more or less questionable in their precision.
What has been observed has led to some conclusions.
If the universe does indeed expand the ballon way, then it has to expand everywhere - even here in the solar system. Now this would mean that the distance between the objects in the solar system would have to become bigger, except if gravitational forces would "block" or "counter" that expansion somehow.
We'd have to check whether the rate of expansion would be the same everywhere and so on and so force.
So, no, we know nothing of that sort, since there is no way to test.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 17, 2009 07:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
We know nothing of that sort. We made some OBSERVATIONS, that are in itself more or less questionable in their precision.
The much more questionable, unquantifiable thing is "knowing something of the sort". The WHY, the "do I know it?", is not quantifiable, and while I agree with you that we don't know it, that has nothing to do with the scientific method -- it is convenient, I give you that, but not critical/necessary aspect.
So I understand what you're saying and even agree, except that "knowing" something is not a requirement and it is subjective, or in other words, it doesn't have a concrete, measurable answer.
Aren't observations are the only thing used in science anyway? Every test has observations, whether it is a machine/instrument output, or something with the naked eye (unlikely). The observation matters, not the medium used to observe it.
Quote:
What has been observed has led to some conclusions.
Exactly and one of those conclusions is that the Universe will continue to expand -- and we know HOW, at least, with current observations and data. The WHY is unimportant: why do electrons have charge?
Now, science doesn't answer WHYs, it answers HOWs, at least with current observations (obviously it can change).
Quote:
If the universe does indeed expand the ballon way, then it has to expand everywhere - even here in the solar system. Now this would mean that the distance between the objects in the solar system would have to become bigger, except if gravitational forces would "block" or "counter" that expansion somehow.
We'd have to check whether the rate of expansion would be the same everywhere and so on and so force.
It does, but it is expanding by scaling, not by offsetting -- which is why the "edge" or objects further away expand much faster, by differences -- but by ratios (division) they expand at the same rate.
An object with "coordinate" 1000000 expands to 2000000 in some time, an object with 0.05 coordinate expands to 0.10 in the same amount -- which is insignificant in comparison. This is what I meant with "scaling". In a few million years this might be obvious, if it continues the current expansion trend, but right now, it's insignificant here.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 17, 2009 08:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
What has been observed has led to some conclusions.
Exactly and one of those conclusions is that the Universe will continue to expand -- and we know HOW, at least, with current observations and data. The WHY is unimportant: why do electrons have charge?
No, that's where you are wrong. OBSERVATIONS can never lead to definite knowledge. The universe MIGHT continue to expand - but it might as well not.
Quote:
Quote:
If the universe does indeed expand the ballon way, then it has to expand everywhere - even here in the solar system. Now this would mean that the distance between the objects in the solar system would have to become bigger, except if gravitational forces would "block" or "counter" that expansion somehow.
We'd have to check whether the rate of expansion would be the same everywhere and so on and so force.
It does, but it is expanding by scaling, not by offsetting -- which is why the "edge" or objects further away expand much faster, by differences -- but by ratios (division) they expand at the same rate.
An object with "coordinate" 1000000 expands to 2000000 in some time, an object with 0.05 coordinate expands to 0.10 in the same amount -- which is insignificant in comparison. This is what I meant with "scaling". In a few million years this might be obvious, if it continues the current expansion trend, but right now, it's insignificant here.
Nah, Death. The problem is a different one, obviously. It's not about measuring small distances (although we should be able to do that now). It's about changing gravitational foces with the ballooning effect. Think back 3 billion years; Earth was still young then, but there it was already circling the sun.
If space expands, 3 billion years ago Earth will DEFINITELY have been WAY nearer to the sun - with gravitation being stronger by a squared factor. So Earth would have to orbit sun WAY faster then, slowing down along the years - by what exactly?
It's obviously not that easy.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 17, 2009 08:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, that's where you are wrong. OBSERVATIONS can never lead to definite knowledge. The universe MIGHT continue to expand - but it might as well not.
"We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future." - Max Planck
So all of physics is a dud?
No, like I said before, it isn't concerned with WHYs, if it were, Planck wouldn't have been a brilliant scientist.
Quote:
Nah, Death. The problem is a different one, obviously. It's not about measuring small distances (although we should be able to do that now). It's about changing gravitational foces with the ballooning effect. Think back 3 billion years; Earth was still young then, but there it was already circling the sun.
If space expands, 3 billion years ago Earth will DEFINITELY have been WAY nearer to the sun - with gravitation being stronger by a squared factor. So Earth would have to orbit sun WAY faster then, slowing down along the years - by what exactly?
I don't know, there are like 1000 different theories regarding the early expansion of the Universe, "inflation" and all the crap that I don't like -- so I will answer: I don't know.
But this is what I'm saying: I don't know how it was before, how the Earth got into the current orbit etc... but we do know how to predict the expansion within the next few minutes -- speaking of that, we'd like to extend it to a few hours. Why not years? Hell, let's try to predict for decades or centuries. (maybe it'll be a correct prediction -- which I would actually bet on)
Basing on THAT only, let's try to say that it won't change course.
Here's a question: you think that the expansion may not continue forever. What if it will actually abruptly accelerate even faster?
The only basis here is at least our current observations -- and simple extrapolating that it won't change.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 17, 2009 10:37 PM |
|
|
I'm stopping this now because not only you do not understand Planck, you do not understand science either.
If you want to believe that "science" as you understand it is giving you knowledge about the far future of creation I'm not going to make you think otherwise: religion is religion, after all.
Discussion useless.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted September 17, 2009 10:58 PM |
|
|
JJ, there's no functional difference between prediction of data which will be acquired three seconds from now versus those which will be acquired much later. Extrapolation is extrapolation. The practical difference is that as the amount of time increases, even small perturbations from existing theory become more important. But, importantly, it's a continuum, and there's no set amount of time where suddenly extrapolation becomes, as you put it, simple speculation (or, more unfairly, religion).
For instance, you can use very basic Newtonian kinematics to predict the position of a ping-pong ball fired into the air. At times immediately after the initial firing time, the position predicted by theory and the real position will probably be almost perfectly superimposable. However, as time goes by, forces not taken into consideration by the basic equations (air friction, for example) will eventually become more important, and eventually you will be able to discern minute differences between the actual position and that predicted by your theory. Air friction causes the ball to slow down, of course. Over time, this drag force becomes significant and there will become a point where the difference between theory and observation will be measurable. At that point, you know that a modification in your theory is order. So you modify your theory to incorporate drag forces, and you extrapolate your (new) predicted ball positions as a function of time (essentially, distance travelled). And you find that again, for quite some time, the measured position and the predicted position match up pretty well. But then as time stretches on you might start to notice more deviations, due to other problems in the theory - say, that gravity isn't constant as a function of height, or relativistic problems, or whatever. Of course, your instrumentation has to be pretty good to pick those up, but they would, again, become more significant as time goes by.
There's no fundamental problem with using extrapolation, however. Indeed, only through extrapolation of theory and comparison to empirical data does science progress at all. How well extrapolated predictions match reality (and how well deviations can be noticed) comes down to the quality of the theory and the quality of measurement. But insofar as science is an iterative process (where we contruct theories, extrapolate, and compare to observation), extrapolation is a fundamental aspect of scientific inquiry, leading to both advances in scientific instrumentation AND scientific theory.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 17, 2009 11:09 PM |
|
|
No.
In your example forces are KNOWN. You are not observing "a ping-pong ball fird in the air", you are simply observing something. If you have no idea what kind of force is moving the ball and what factors are influencing the movement of the ball you simply have nothing except an observation.
Like, a yellow disc is moving about a blue expanse each day - or sometimes it does't. No matter how many times you are observing it and no matter how complex a theory you develop about what that actually is and how things are, NO AMOUNT of prediction will further your understanding of what is going on, if you do not understand what is going on.
Extrapolation in itself has no use whatsoever.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted September 17, 2009 11:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
In your example forces are KNOWN.
Of course they're known in this example. But most of the time they aren't.
You develop a theory, extrapolate the predictions, and test those predictions with observations. When you get to a point when you can perceive a difference between your extrapolated predictions and real data, you modify your theory. Then you extrapolate new predictions, and test. Ad nauseum. That's the scientific method in a nutshell.
Quote:
Extrapolation in itself has no use whatsoever.
Wrong. We do it all the time. I'm designing an undergraduate chemistry lab right now (literally - I'm taking a break from it to write this), and the whole point of it is extrapolation of predictions of a basic theory to polymeric compounds, comparison with literature data, and exploration of why the theory needs to be modified for the new compounds. This was, by the way, how the newer, better theory was historically developed.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 17, 2009 11:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You develop a theory, extrapolate the predictions, and test those predictions with observations. When you get to a point when you can perceive a difference between your extrapolated predictions and real data, you modify your theory. Then you extrapolate new predictions, and test. Ad nauseum. That's the scientific method in a nutshell.
That's what I was trying to say in all of my posts here. 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 18, 2009 08:02 AM |
|
|
Corribus, what you describe is true in a chemistry lab, but not in describing the universe. There is no practical use in doing that, except finding EXPLANATIONS. Mindless quantifications of the scientific method make no sense here, because it's not the predictions that are of interest - we won't ever be able to see whether they are true -, but it's the MODEL of our existance itself- or the theory.
You do NOT just extrapolate; you develop a THEORY that should be in accordance with the observations, and that theory is actually the important thing.
A theory is designed to explain the general situation, the WHAT, the HOW, and the WHY, because the THEORY is, what is necessary to evaluate the observation and to understand what is actually going on.
Example: We are living on a big sphere of rock, and there's the sun, the moon and some other bodies that move around it in a regular way. (Lots of evidence pointing into that direction.) A fine theory that explains a lot of things. At this point you can record the movements of them and extrapolate their movements into predictions. Ptolemaios did that and had rather neat, although complex formulae to describe the way everything circled the Earth, and some even circling round in circles within circles like the merry-go-round called "Breakdance" or "Polyp".
There was a theory based on observations; those were used to develop formulae, which allowed predictions - or extrapolations - which in turn showed that the theory seemed to be right.
The important thing here is THE THEORY or MODEL behind things.
With the discussion I have with Death currently THERE IS NO THEORY, THOUGH! "The universe is expanding CURRENTLY in a certain, let's call it BALLOON way" is no theory; it's just a statement. It's like saying, "the known heavenly bodies move around the earth in regular pattern".
In this case extrapolation of this statement makes no sense: "They will continue to do so until the run out of steam; if that happens they will just stop their movement." You see that? IT MAKES NO SENSE.
In short: it's just speculation, because there is no valid theory or model. And, looking at ptolemaios' model of the universe, even if there WAS a theory (which there isn't), even if there WERE true predictions, the observations as such are much too unprecise, vague, ambiguous and uncertain to allow conclusions from "true predictions" to the correctness of the theory or the model.
Rash conclusions are definitely not the scientific way.
|
|
pei
Famous Hero
Fresh Air.
|
|
posted September 18, 2009 08:47 AM |
|
|
How sad...how the universe expands and all the secrets behind physics...we will never get to know. So we can all wonder and as no one has the truth in his pocket you should discuss this properly.
Besides even the best physics have reached to wrong conclusions...doctors too...science is an iterative and incremental knowledge.
In a very very very very simple way:
Meaning of Science--> Knowledge; knowledge of principles and causes; ascertained truth of facts.
So...what´s ascertained?
1. To discover with certainty, as through examination or experimentation.
2. Archaic To make certain, definite, and precise.
So...what´s an experiment?
In scientific research, an experiment is a method of investigating causal relationships among variables, or to test a hypothesis.
So...what´s an hypothesis?
Is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon.
When can an hypothesis be used?
Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot be satisfactorily explained with the available scientific theories.
So...what´s a theory?
A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things:
1. it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
2. makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.
In the scientific or empirical tradition, the term "theory" is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains. These requirements vary across different scientific fields of knowledge, but in general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: i.e. a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena.
Theories are distinct from theorems: theorems are derived deductively from theories according to a formal system of rules, generally as a first step in testing or applying the theory in a concrete situation. Theories are abstract and conceptual, and to this end they are never considered right or wrong. Instead, they are supported or challenged by observations in the world.
I think i made my point clear...u are playing with theories so nobody is right and nobody is wrong.
My dad used to say that there were (dont remember exactly the number) only 1523 stars when we were kids. We never believed that and he always smiled saying proof me wrong. So, once my brother and i started counting the stars and inmediatly knew what he meant. From a weird point of view he was wrong as from my perspective there were 45 stars, i couldnt count more so i made my own conclusion: if i cant count more than 45 then perhaps my father had counted some stars more than once AND then AND only then i could have a point. (I knew that the star count was much much bigger but i played along). Then, i told that to a friend as a repeater child and he came across another number and so the drama continues.
I just think that a lot of posibilities are open and if once people considered earth not to be (kind of)round then perhaps we are also confused with another theory.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 18, 2009 09:01 AM |
|
|
Exactly.
And the whole discussion here began with Death "proving" someone wrong by making definitive statements about "the end of time" and the structure of the universe.
Which he can't do.
|
| |
|
|
