|
|
|
|
#181
11-07-2008
|
||||
|
||||
ASCII!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111!!!!!!!!!
OK, ur rite. This was getting a tad rediculous, especually as an outlook on the human race. I'll treat you to a drink at the BAR, that place needs some livening up. [ I was only yanking your coller a bit in regards to the apology business. Nothing to dwell on, eh? ] 
|
|
#182
11-10-2008
|
|||
|
|||
|
wow a fight over me this is brill
(sorry for going off topic)
|
|
#183
11-12-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
Alright, that we shall.
|
|
#184
12-23-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
With how big space is...I don't have a hard time believing there is life beyond our solar system. It's inevitable.
We just haven't found them yet, or they just haven't found us yet. Or maybe they have found us; but won't admit it. :]
|
|
#185
12-23-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
i think they are already here
|
|
#186
12-23-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
Prehaps they are.
Prehaps they live among us.
|
|
#187
12-23-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
Prehaps they are.
Prehaps they live among us.
|
|
#188
12-30-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
If you take the time to think about the true scale of space, the billions of stars it contains, then the question if there is any intelligent life elsewhere in the universe changes to where is the intelligent life?
|
|
#189
12-31-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
No, it's still is. I mean, you just answered your own question, didn't you. Clearly if it is out there, it's somewhere around the billions of stars you just mentioned. That part's simple. The real question is whether or not it exists in the first place.
|
|
#190
01-01-2009
|
|||
|
|||
|
I am quite sure that we Homosapiens are not the only living beings in the universe. If we are alone out here, then I will feel very isolated and insecure (not emo-on a UNIVERSAL scale). I have read science articles that say the chances of life occuring on a planet are extrmemely slim, 1 to 10 billion or something along those values. If there is indeed sentient life out there in the vast cosmos, and assuming they have several thousand or million years headstart over us humans, then they are probably more advanced than anything we ever dreamed of. Isaac Asimov, Arthur C Clarke. Carl Sagan are personal heroes of mine who not only write fantastic novels, but also stretch our imagination of things unknown. We must be humbling on such matters.
Let's hope they're nothing like the Covenant from Halo who will not hesitate to exterminate us for our inferiority <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley5.png'>
|
|
#191
01-01-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
I think there's something strangely comforting about the thought that there is no other intelligent life in the universe. I mean, I don't believe it myself, and I think that it's certainly very possible that there is other life, but I don't see why there should be any reason to feel isolated and insecure because you're the only sentient species in the universe.
I mean, think about it. What on Earth is discomforting about the fact that against astronomical odds, you are the final product of the highly unlikely development of a form of existence that, in a mind-bogglingly big universe, is unique to you and you alone? I mean, people go on with this whole "the Universe is so big, look at how insignificant and meaningless we are" attitude, but that doesn't really make any sense, does it? I mean, how does being the most developed being of a unique brand of existence When you think about it, what is the Universe? It's nothing but a bunch of gas, dust and icy grain, chunks of rock, heaps of chemicals moving around...essentially, it's dirt. By human standards, it's garbage. There is nothing that, if it were to exist on Earth, wouldn't readily be tossed in a landfill. As vast and enormous as the Universe may be, as far as we know, there's still virtually nothing out there. I mean, really, what exists in the known Universe outside of Earth that's so much greater than us? Is there art? Is there music? Is there poetry? Is there food? Is there language? Is there companionship? Is there philosophy? Is there sex? Is there storytelling? Is there love? No. There's dirt. Some of it's very big, some of it's very small, some of it's on fire, some of it's covered in ice, and all of it's very far apart, but still, it's dirt. Now, I don't want to come off as sounding geocentric, and I appreciate human curiosity, but at the same time it's just that, curiosity. As interested as we may be in the Universe beyond Earth, it's not as though that I've always asked, if it was possible to travel safely at the speed of light, where would you possibly go? Sure you could travel to places now unimaginable, but at the same time, what would you do when you get there? We want to explore because it's in our nature, but at the same time we have to accept that the revelance and meaning it has to us and our lives is still very little. It's like Ernie's song I Don't Want to Live on the Moon, from Sesame Street. We are humans. This is our planet. Our existence is literally meant for Earth. We have everything we could need as a species here naturally, and whatever we may still desire, we create, and we continue to create as we go on. No, it's not perfect, but everything in our lives that we could need, want or use isn't going to come from the sky, it's going to come from right here. So I don't see where the notion of insignificance comes in. To be human in a Universe with no other sentient life is to be able to look at the night sky and know that you are the most interesting thing in a near infinite world. It kind of makes you feel proud, doesn't it? And as far as isolation, human kinship is more than enough to get you through the long winter nights. Also, this notion that somehow these sorts of novels are a bold and humbling insight into the possibilities of what may lie beyond to be baffling. Relying on the belief that there are bigger, more important men out there somewhere in the Universe who are stronger and better than you in order to feel secure with your own Earthly existence is just as silly as needing to believe in a god to feel the same thing. They're actually pretty much the same thing. These are both different modes of storytelling through which humans express their own tendencies, and needs and desires by personifying them through the use of distant, alien figures who are supposedly distinct and different from humanity, so that we can then look at them and judge them from an outside perspective, as though to judge ourselves. I know I've said it before, but I'll say it again, religion isn't really about gods, and science fiction isn't really about what lies beyond. Whatever storytelling devices may be used, both of them are about humans, and humans alone. Whatever you want to do in your little modern day legends, and 20th century biblical parables is all well and good, but when you want to talk about the real world don't make the mistake of creating life in your own image. Yes, they're good for the imagination, but in terms of what really is, they're irrelevant. Perhaps we can learn a bit about ourselves from them, but again, in matters material, irrelevant. If you're an Atheist, don't make the Unknown your god. Anyway, on to the meat and potatoes of the issue, and that is sentient life in the Universe. Yes, there is a very good possibility that there is some sort of life elsewhere in the universe. Still, it would be very foolish to suppose that such life is "intelligent" or somehow "more advanced" than humans, because doing so is to fall into the trap of thinking that humankind is somehow representative of a universal standard for developed life. Starting off with the "more advanced" bit. It's possible to call humans more advanced than other species on Earth because we all share a common ancestor, and we all represent different stages in a long line of evolution, therefore making those of us farther down the line more advanced. But at the same time, extra-terrestrial life would not share the same evolutionary lineage, far from it. So in trying to imagine extra terrestrial life you have to ignore absolutely everything that we, as humans, take for granted. Even at the most basic level, why should we assume a resemblance to terrestrial life? Why should single-celled organisms on other planets even remotely resemble those on Earth? It would be an entirely different environment, after all. But taking that into consideration, even if there was sme sort of resemblance, why should we assume these species would be animals? Then again, why should we even assume they would be eukaryotes? I mean, even if they were eukaryotes, which there still isn't much reasoning for, there are four taxonomical kingdoms we classify eukaryotes under, animalia, plantae, fungi and protista. So, why should there not, on an entirely different planet, be a fifth kingdom? Or a sixth kingdom? Or a myriad of kingdoms unlike anything ever seen on earth? Even on the most basic, fundamental levels, there is no reason to assume any resemblance to terrestrial life, yet somehow we're to ignore that, and assume that life on other planets would not only take an unreasonably similar form to that on Earth, but that it would go on to produce a human-like species, which can then be surpassed in order to produce a "more advanced" species. The chances of life itself existing may be possible albeit highly improbable, but the odds of that sort of scenario ever occuring are downright laughable. And then there's the matter of "inteligence." I mean, what is inteligence? On Earth it is a uniquely human characteristic, that exists in such a way that humans can take on a very specialized role. Now, this is where not taking things for granted comes in. Think of all of the possible senses that exist other than inteligence that are only posessed by a very small number of species. Sight, for example. The fast majority of organisms on Earth cannot see. Protists can't see, bacteria can't see, fungi can't see, plants can't see, and a considerable number of animals can't see. This isn't a disadvantage or anything, because at the same time, they don't need to. Now, you could say this is because animals that have sight are "more advanced," but then again, look at plenty of other specialized senses, like echolocation. Humans can't echolocate. Until very recently, we couldn't even understand what echolocation is. Now, humans are far more advanced than bats, but at the same time we don't use echolocation for it, because we have no use for it. It is indeed just a sense that, although useful for a small few species, fell off the evolutionary tree later on in the game. That being said, why should we assume that something even remotely resembling intelligence should occur in organisms that have an entirely different ancestry, going back to the most fundamental level, and therefore have an entirely different evolutionary path from anything on Earth? The chances, once again, are laughable. At the same time, who's to say that there aren't a myriad other senses that these organisms may have that are entirely alien to humans? Just as a paramecium is completely incapable of experiencing sight, and a plant is incapable of experiencing fear, doesn't it stand to reason that there are just as easily a thousand other sensations that humans are entirely incapable of fathoming, due to our terribly limited abilities of perception? And what about this, what if there is something in the Universe greater than life? I mean, life is just a state of being that certain physical compounds take on. Now, for this to occur is very uncommon, but still, it's happened. So why should we assume that there isn't some other state of being, completely different from life, that is just as uncommon as life, and which as a result we have never encountered, yet still exists? I mean, just as life is alien to a rock, and beyond a rock's comprehension, why shouldn't there be some other mode of existence that is as unfathomable to us as life is to a rock? The mistake we can't make is that of thinking that we are aware of everything. That is to say, it's foolish to assume that humans are somehow aware, or capable of being aware of all of the factors and elements and sensations that contribute to existence. Why should we assume that there is nothing beyond our abilities of experience, simply because we have not experienced them? Imagine, if you will, trying to get an amoeba to appreciate Mozart. it's not just difficult, it's literally impossible. Why? Because while Mozart's music certainly exists, a fact that is undeniable to us, the amoeba does not have the organs with which to sense it, the senses with which to perceive it, the faculties with which to process it, the reasoning with which to understand it, or the sentiments with which to appreciate it. The amoeba doesn't know this, of course, but there is indeed an entire world beyond its existence that it will not and can not ever be aware of. Why, then, should we humans assume ourselves to be any different? Who are we to say that we aren't just amoeba, floating blindly in the petri dish that is the Universe? And what logic or reasoning could say otherwise?
|
|
#192
01-01-2009
|
|||
|
|||
|
I didn't expect quite a lengthy response but there is much truth in what you posted. I understand what your saying, but I still feel that if we are the only sentient species in Universe, the very notion demands that we try our best to survive for generations to come. Without blowing each other up to smithereens in the process. I don't believe that one can survive death in a non-physical form, therefore I don't believe in an afterlife. As such, I feel that the future of our species lies with the understanding that if we are to die from natural or manmade causes, we run the risk of leaving behind an empty Universe devoid of life for maybe millions of years. I can't fathom what that could be like, but there is always the possibility. It is this reason that I prefer to (and there is a much larger probability) think that there are in fact other life in space.
|
|
#193
01-01-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Keep in mind, the Universe was devoid of life for billions of years before we came along, and devoid of "intelligent" life for all but up until several thousand years ago. In terms of the grand calendar of the history of the Universe, the period of our existence is so small it's practically immeasurable. So if I was you I wouldn't worry about leaving a Universe devoid of intelligent life. I'm sure the Universe is used to it.
And also, even if we're gone, that's not it for life in general. That is, there would still be other forms of life on Earth, so it's not as though the Universe would be entirely on its own. And it's actually very easy to fathom what it would be like if there were no life in the Universe. It would be very, very boring. Then again, we wouldn't be around for it, so why should we care? I mean, with no one around to be bored, why should it matter how boring something is? Hey, that's kind of like the "tree falls in the forest" kind of thing, isn't it? But yeah, don't feel so responsible. Take care of yourself, your friends, your family, your pets, if you have any. That's what matters. The Universe can take care of itself without you fretting over it.
|
|
#194
01-01-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
I agree for the most part.
Our society may benifit from the lack of unmanageable threat from other speices riveling or exceeding our intelligence. But if our planet was to be wiped out by a natural or artificial disease from other planetary species, they would serve as the only proof that there was ever life here. Unless they choose not to pass the story on. That's the Cliff Notes version, at least.
|
|
#196
01-31-2009
|
|||
|
|||
|
Consider the possibilities of Level 1 Parallel Universe, a Universe within the same space as ours, but out of our cosmic view. Since the Universe is infinitely large and the laws of Quantum Mechanics give every event possible a one to infinite chance of occurring, every possible event has already happened. So in theory there are an infinite number of worlds like our own containing intelligent life.
However this is just a theory, and none of it can be proven. Just give it some careful consideration before discrediting these potential prospects.
|
|
#197
01-31-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
I thought the Universe was 15 billion lightyears in diameter?
|
|
#199
01-31-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
But we've got a picture.
 See? That's the Universe.
|
|
#201
01-31-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
That sounds like RationalInquirer's definition of religion. But back on the subject, if the Universe is 15 billion years old, around, and light travels at one light-year every year, and nothing travels faster than light, then how can there be anything beyond that 15 billion light-year mark? Seriously though, look at the picture. I can see my house!
|
|
#202
01-31-2009
|
|||
|
|||
|
Even though nothing travels faster than light, things can travel the same speed as light. So if the Universe is expanding at the same speed as light, we will never be able to see farther than 15 billions years. Rather than being an age this should be the point the rate of expansion reached the speed of light.
|
|
#203
01-31-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#204
01-31-2009
|
|||
|
|||
|
That's a good question, if I were a mathematician I would answer you with an exact number. However, in this case if the Universe were close at a rate to the speed of light it would have traveled an innumerable number of light years, in theory. So there may be billions more of light years we'll never be able to see without wormholes or hyperspace.
|
|
#205
01-31-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#206
01-31-2009
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well maybe the Universe hasn't reached speed of light yet so there may be more to the Universe for us to see. However, it's to soon to be sure, it's impossible to know unless, we wait several million year to see if we can see any farther than before. Eventually there has to be a point at which the universe and light are at the same speed, freezing our image of the Universe forever. Light is a constant so we just have to wait for the Universe to catch up.
|
|
#207
01-31-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Tatterdemalion, basically you get a real sense of well being from being top dog lol, though can see what your saying
Noslo, the problem is that earth is "very close" (this is in relative terms) to the out edge of galaxy and because of the TIME-SPACE-CONTINUUMM it is very hard to know real limits of space and if what we are seeing is even still there, There are theories if were to travels through space you could get younger, because of just how warped it is, is unknown So this comes down to chance and probability really, (I mean we were only made by chance and probability) As there is argument space is so big, there cannot not be other life (sentient/ animal, already found baritira and plants) However you have counter balance this against just how amazing it is we came to be, our planet being just right distance away from sun, with right gases/levels of gas, eco layers, gravity/up put layers...etc all being just right, if there is one argument for god, it is this one and the fact earth has not been destroyed (as is one other planet in our galaxy cannot remember which, that could have supported life, had it not become a gas bowl for unknown reason) So this there another planet which did same, who knows, like say got to weight them to points up and come to own conclusion PSNo matter how cool Star Wars is, 90% of planets on it, like Hoth could never have life
|
|
#208
01-31-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#209
01-31-2009
|
||||
|
||||
|
Tatter, I was only joking as basically you said it feels nice to think humans are somehow to supreme, lol
Yes you are right and I never said anything against the argument that Universe is big, so got to have life, just saying must counter against this against how hard it is for life to grow
|
 |
|
|
