|
| Thread: Immortality and the definition of life |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted September 18, 2009 03:23 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 15:26, 18 Sep 2009.
|
@JJ
Quote:
Corribus, what you describe is true in a chemistry lab, but not in describing the universe. *snipped*
Wrong again.
(1) The scientific method does not vary as a function of scientific discipline. The procedure is the same in chemistry, physics, biology. The only difference in some cases is the ease with which data can be acquired.
(2) Since when is theoretical chemistry not "describing the universe"?
(3) The lab to which I refer will be taking place in a chemistry lab, but it's more physics than chemistry. Does that make a difference? Not really (see #1) - it's just a label.
Quote:
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.
A model only has any worth as far as it can be evaluated. The only way to do that is comparison of predictions with empirical data. Most of the time, acquired data occurs at the extremes, and so extrapolation of a model and comparison with extreme data is the primary way that models are evaluated, which typically leads to old models being discarded and new ones being devised. Of course, I've already said all this above, so I don't see why it's necessary to repeat myself.
Quote:
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.
I already said all this.
By the way, quantum theory arose from differences between observation and extrapolation of classical physical law. A specific example is blackbody radiation and the ultraviolet catastrophe.
Quote:
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".
I don't really care what Death says or does not say. You can argue about the validity of his model (or lack thereof) if you want. But that doesn't change the fact that extrapolation is an important part of the scientific method. Certainly if you extrapolate from a bad premise, your prediction is going to be bad - which I've already stated above. But the act of extrapolation is not, itself, to blame. The bad premise/model/theory is.
____________
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 18, 2009 03:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't really care what Death says or does not say. You can argue about the validity of his model (or lack thereof) if you want. But that doesn't change the fact that extrapolation is an important part of the scientific method. Certainly if you extrapolate from a bad premise, your prediction is going to be bad - which I've already stated above. But the act of extrapolation is not, itself, to blame. The bad premise/model/theory is.
That's what I said: WITHOUT any premise/model/theory, extrapolation makes no sense and is as scientific as putting an unknown substance into another unknown substance, noting a slight color change, since it is only a PART of a scientific whole that needs a bit more than an observation and a couple of IFs. Things are not scientific just because you come up with an equation from out of nowhere.
|
|
pei
Famous Hero
Fresh Air.
|
|
posted September 18, 2009 04:15 PM |
|
|
|
Im currently seeing some extrapolation related to data mining in the university and according to the class lectures, which i think are pretty good, Corribus and Jolly are right.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 18, 2009 04:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
That's what I said: WITHOUT any premise/model/theory, extrapolation makes no sense and is as scientific as putting an unknown substance into another unknown substance, noting a slight color change, since it is only a PART of a scientific whole that needs a bit more than an observation and a couple of IFs. Things are not scientific just because you come up with an equation from out of nowhere.
No, because the theory itself is based on extrapolation.
Let me put it like this. A hypothesis SAYS something. Do you think it's true? No, you of course need experiments and tests and see if what it says is true (i.e if it PREDICTS anything).
In this example: we say that the Universe expands with formula A. This was the initial hypothesis. Since then it passed a lot of predictions, and it became a theory.
That's all there is to it.
It has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the subjective-value of "understanding" something -- that is JUST a side-effect what most people get from it, they think they understand the relationships etc -- some sort of imagination perhaps. Which has NOTHING to do with the scientific method itself, like I said, it's just a side-effect. The reason it has nothing to do with it is BECAUSE it is NOT QUANTIFIABLE.
How do you DEFINE whether we "understand" a given phenomenon? Give me a QUANTIFIABLE and PRECISE answer: is it that the theory we used predicted things? Or that you THINK that you understand something because "it makes sense to you"? Don't you see how subjective this sounds?
How do you know it's not fairies who actually push atoms together that makes gravity tick? Is that important?
Answer: it doesn't make a difference to THE EFFECTS, which is what science MEASURES, not the WHYs. How many times must I repeat this?
There could just as well be invisible flying pink Unicorns pulling the Universe -- but it doesn't make a god damn difference because the WHY is unimportant, it's the HOW that science answers. Example: HOW does the Universe expand? This is what the current theories try to explain. (i.e accelerating)
And thanks for calling mine a religion when I'm the only one (between us) who actually gives concrete answers that can be QUANTIFIABLE -- usually, you know, religion can't be.
You have a twisted view of science.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted September 18, 2009 04:24 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 16:24, 18 Sep 2009.
|
@JJ
Quote:
That's what I said: WITHOUT any premise/model/theory, extrapolation makes no sense *snipped*
I don't see how it's even possible to extrapolate without a model. You need a model to extrapolate from.
____________
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 18, 2009 04:52 PM |
|
|
That's what I argued with Death about.
His (when I say "his" I means he said that) "model/theory" is: we can observe that the universe is expanding in a certain way (currently) - and now we "extrapolate" that observation to close proceedings with "big freeze".
I said, as long we have no theory/model that explains the expansion in some way, it's cause and therefore it's probable gradient or further progressing, there is no extrapolation possible. Or, more correct, it's not extrapolation, but simply speculation.
What I said was basically that: without model/theory there is no extrapolation, which is why it ended me saying, extrapolation (alone!) is no science.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 18, 2009 05:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What I said was basically that: without model/theory there is no extrapolation, which is why it ended me saying, extrapolation (alone!) is no science.
what do you think extrapolation even is?
The theory is there: you can extrapolate in practically an infinite number of ways!
Alright let's make this in another way, this will hopefully be much clearer I hope 
You see some data on a graph. Now, you want to find a function that approximates them (because margin of errors exist of course). You should know there are an infinte number of functions you can choose from right? Polynomial? Sinusoidal?
The difference amongst these functions is NOT "understanding" -- a function is NOT proven "wrong" or "right" because "it makes sense" or not. It is proven wrong by FURTHER DATA -- example: if you start with 3 data points, make a function, then collect a fourth data point and you find out your function is way off -- then you must adjust it.
If John had another function that also explained the first 3 points, but now it ALSO works with the fourth, then John's theory is more valid.
There is no "understanding" involved here, that's just a tool, imagination if you will, that helps you devise the theory, but is in no way REQUIRED to devise the theory. For example, John could say "well I came to this function/theory because I believe in flying pink unicorns and they have led me to this one". This does NOT discredit John's theory, because how the theory is formed is IRRELEVANT -- as long as it predicts things, it is valid.
You can have all the reasons you want behind your theory. That doesn't change that it's wrong or right, depending on further collected data.
The theory is usually just a mathematical representation or function. We already HAVE one for the expansion. I'm not sure why you think it's bugged or something.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
pei
Famous Hero
Fresh Air.
|
|
posted September 18, 2009 05:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Let me put it like this. A hypothesis SAYS something. Do you think it's true? No, you of course need experiments and tests and see if what it says is true (i.e if it PREDICTS anything).
In this example: we say that the Universe expands with formula A. This was the initial hypothesis. Since then it passed a lot of predictions, and it became a theory.
That's all there is to it.
It has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the subjective-value of "understanding" something -- that is JUST a side-effect what most people get from it, they think they understand the relationships etc -- some sort of imagination perhaps. Which has NOTHING to do with the scientific method itself...
...You have a twisted view of science.
I think that the scientific method has something to do with hypothesis.
A hypothesis is just a possible answer, an educated guess, to the question you formulated. Your hypothesis must be testable.
Example: If drugs cause death then people who consume drugs have more chance to die.
So: Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.
If we take a GOOD sample of population and observe that a very high number of people that consume drugs die (excluding natural death and other variables) then we can reason and implie that the hypothesis is certain.
So, if undestanding something has nothing to do with the study of a population´s behaviour THEN what u are trying to do is a redefinition of the scientific method, erasing induction and deduction. But the only true scientific method is to use whatever tools we can to make observations, ask and answer questions, solve problems, test a theory, etc., and it doesn’t matter whether we use induction, deduction, or any other kind of reasoning to do so; it would be a heresy to deny the validity of any method that helps us learn to know.
Death, have u ever heard the word "Eureka"?
Quoting myself:
Quote:
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.
And to blow ur mind i say:
In all respects science is logically incompatible with the belief in a nonmaterial intelligent entity that controls the universe and is called God , yet many scientists, especially among the chemists and physicists but even among some biologists have such a religious belief.
People can think of only three resolutions of this paradox:
The scientist’s God either is not an intelligent entity or has no control over the universe.
The second is to accept the concept of science as defined here with a part of one’s mind and that of God with another, with an impermeable barrier between the two parts.
The third is either not to be a scientist or not to believe in God, i.e. to be an atheist, or a nonbeliever.
There are other points of view that propose prohibiting religion as well.
It would be nice to invite Dimiss to give his opinion, as he is a fan of analytical studies, we could use his opinion.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 18, 2009 05:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I think that the scientific method has something to do with hypothesis.
I just explained the relationship 
Quote:
In all respects science is logically incompatible with the belief in a nonmaterial intelligent entity that controls the universe and is called God , yet many scientists, especially among the chemists and physicists but even among some biologists have such a religious belief.
What does "logically incompatible" mean, or is that just a buzzword?
I just explained a hundred times why it is NOT concerned with any God. It is not "incompatible", it just HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
Philosophy is there too, alongside, for example the question: "why do electrons have charge?" is best answered by philosophy. Science, on the other hand, answers: "the electron's charge has the effects described by the following theories/formulas".
In other words, the WHY is left to philosophy, the HOW is left to science.
I'm not sure how more layman I can explain it, and buzzwords certainly don't help.
____________
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 09:38 PM |
|
|
Death, where is your theory that allows extrapolation?
I didn't see any.
I fact you have none, since there is none. If you want to extrapolate the expansion of the universe then you need a theory about it, because only if you have a theory about it you can extrapolate BASED ON THAT.
Example: You have two points in a coordinate system: 0;0 and 1;1
Without a theory about the graph that runs through those, you cannot extrapolate because there an infinize number of possible graphs.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 18, 2009 10:04 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 22:06, 18 Sep 2009.
|
Who said it's *my* theory? 
I don't know the exact formula so I tried to Google
For example: http://www.hubble-h.com/expansion-universe.html
Also this is easier to understand and even explains how Hubble discovered it (like I explained).
____________
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 10:25 PM |
|
|
I'm going to be drastic and say that this - including the link and our posts - is all pseudosientific nonsense.
First thing is that the age of the universe isn't clear. Guessing the age of the universe with the Hubble constant needs the assumption that expansion speed was constant...
The dark energy monster has been invented only because of the supposed acceleration of expansion.
Now compare those two.
Still the official version is that because of the missing precision in observations make a definite statement about the fate of the universe impossible
It adds up to - we do not know anything definite. Especially not the reason of expansion.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 18, 2009 10:48 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 22:50, 18 Sep 2009.
|
Quote:
I'm going to be drastic and say that this - including the link and our posts - is all pseudosientific nonsense.
It's only pseudoscientific if science means to you science+philosophy, because it lacks the philosophy part 
And I don't like the Dark Matter thing either -- but the "effects" it has on normal "matter" are visible. Dark Matter is just a hypothesis anyway, the effects are not.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 19, 2009 10:24 AM |
|
|
Death, I see this a bit different than you - I don't think that the "extreme" observations reliable. Moreover, in terms of age of universe our "look" into things is pretty short and even outdated. The fact that if we look at an object 100 million lightyears away has happened a very long time ago isn't making things any easier.
In fact, if you can extrapolate one thing, then it's the fact that on a cosmic scale we will always be wrong on the fringe or on the limits of what we can reasonably observe. That we may have a better understanding of certain things now than 10, 50, 100, 500, 1000 or 5000 years ago id irrelevant, since "limits of observation" is something that changes accordingly.
You might say, we are lighting things up and the radius of the light gets bigger, but on the fringes of the light we are bound to be wrong - especially since we have no idea what's behind the fringes, still in the dark.
There is no way to be certain about things concerning "the universe" at this point, and when I say "certain" I mean certain I mean a reasonably high probability of truth.
We don't even know about what's going on within the core of our own planet. The simple truth is, we are just guessing.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted September 19, 2009 11:36 AM |
|
|
First I thought you guys were just writing long posts about small details, pretty much spamming, but after reading some of it, I think it's actually some good quality in many of those posts, so good work guys.  Keep it up please.
Oh to add to some of the weirdness of space knowledge of today:
It's said that the universe is 78 billion light years across
It's said that the universe is 16 billion years old
In 16 billion years, light can only travel 16 billion light years, 16 * 2 = 32, so how can the universe be 78 billion light years across without violating that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 19, 2009 03:41 PM |
|
|
Well, that's not quite right. If space is expanding like the surface of a balloon, it's a different kind of movement. It's more like an illusion of movement: the distance between objects increase, without objects actually moving in space.
In this case the normal rules do not apply because space isn't constant. Distance is changing. The movement is illusionary.
Imagine a balloon - everywhere are points of matter, bigger ones and smaller ones. The bigger they are, the deeper they press themselves into the fabric of space.
Now imagine that air is pumped into the balloon. Where the matter points are, nothing much happens: the gravitational force of the matter is too strong. However, in the big areas without matter there is no or not much gravitation, and here the balloon is blown up, so distance between those matter points are becoming bigger and bigger. the relative speed is no effect of any real movement of the matter points, but only an illusion caused by the simply fact that the distance gets bigger.
However, the actual guess about age and size of the universe is no more than a guess because it needs a couple of assumptions that are not proven to be true.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 19, 2009 04:50 PM |
|
|
@JollyJoker: alright let me explain why this has more chances of being true than an alternative.
Without any knowledge of it, and if we split it into equal chances (because we have no idea), let's say that we get:
- 50% for the Universe to stop expanding and contract
- 50% for the Universe to start expanding even faster
(the chance for it to be in perfect equillibrum being infinitely small, I mean, it's just one number out of infinite).
Now, though, you can see that we already see it as expanding, so the chances for it to NOT change at all should ALSO be taken into account. The "chance" is subjectively evaluated, depending on how you think it's going to change or not.
This is what I quoted Planck for: the laws of physics may change completely tomorrow, gravity may cease working, or quantum mechanics may cease working. However, due to the previous experiences we had, we assign chances that such a thing to happen is extremely low -- this is subjective experience validation based on "weighting" data.
In this case we ONLY observed the Universe that it expands, so the chances are considerable for it to NOT change course or abruptly accelerate more.
Therefore, I would assign a 20% more chance that it expands further, so in layman terms:
- 60% that the Universe will continue to expand
- 40% that it will change course
Which makes it more probable.
Quote:
In 16 billion years, light can only travel 16 billion light years, 16 * 2 = 32, so how can the universe be 78 billion light years across without violating that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light?
I don't think you get how relativity works at all. First of all, did you know that if you travel with near speed of light, light will also seem that will still travel with the speed of light compared to you? (the answer is tricky so let's not go into that here).
You're viewing the Universe as absolute, while relativity works in relative-viewpoints. There is no absolute in relativity -- and mind you, there have been a lot of articles saying relativity is wrong (you know, relativity and quantum mechanics don't go well together).
And yes JJ is right about expanding space: "space" and "void" are two different things -- space exists everywhere, space is actually the abstract notion like a mathematical coordinate system: it is NOT the individual components of such system (like, matter).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 20, 2009 10:09 AM |
|
|
|
What you are doing in your last post, Death, do you call that scientific?
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted September 20, 2009 05:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What you are doing in your last post, Death, do you call that scientific?
Of course not, I did say it's a subjective chance evaluation
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 20, 2009 07:28 PM |
|
|
|
Well, as I said, I have no problem with people and their beliefs, but I object when they tell others based on that, they are wrong.
|
| |
|
|
