Are We Alone? - Page 3

MagnaCentipede · 01-06-2008, 04:50 PM

"Facts are what philosophers sometimes call 'truthmakers'."
Pizzas are what fraternity brothers sometimes call "bellyfillers." OM NOM NOM.

/first thing that came to mind reading that.
//goofy jargon makes me laugh.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 01-06-2008, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sordavie

What does this mean? What do you mean by the words 'theory' and 'fact'? As far as usage in academia is concerned, theories are sets of declarative statements that attempt to explain some phenomena. Facts are how the world really is--the state of affairs of the world. In particular, facts are not statements.

Contrast this with the common usage of these words: 'fact' is often used to refer to some statement that is widely accepted or purported to be proven; 'theory' is often used to refer to some unsubstantiated statements. When you hear scientists say that "evolution is a fact" or talk about the "theory of evolution," they mean to use these terms as academics use them--not as they are ordinarily used.

The theory of evolution is a set of statements that attempt to explain some observed phenomena. The fact of evolution is a state of affairs of the world. When a scientist says that evolution is a fact, they don't merely mean that the statements of evolution are well supported by evidence. What they mean is that the world actually is a certain way. When they talk about the theory of evolution, they talk about the statements that attempt to explain some (observed) phenomena.

So, I don't know what you mean when you say a theory is more powerful than a fact.

Powerful is probably the wrong word to use. More important? Kinda but not really. Stronger is getting closer. More viable? More useful?

Anyway. To answer your question it is because a fact is a single piece of information that is true. That is all it is. And it can be countered with another fact or more precise measurement or another observation from another perspective.

A theory is backed up by research, experimentation, debate, conflict and competition. It is much more rare that a single fact can overturn a theory, especially a well established one. A new fact can, and often does, cause a theory to be modified.

So it is much more flexible.

**DigitalAssassin** · 01-06-2008, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

Well, the Bible doesn't really go into potential life on other worlds, either to say yes or no. It would be theologically consistent for Earth to host the only life in the universe, and equally consistent for there to be an intelligent lifeform in every other solar system spread through the whole galaxy. The only thing the theology will really insist on is that if there is any other life out there, it was also created by God. That makes it extremely hard to predict mathematically how likely it is that there are x many civilizations out there, because everywhere God wanted to put one, there is one, and everywhere God didn't want to put one, there isn't one.

I think this is a very important point. The things the Bible IS very specific on (among many other things) are:

a) humans were created IN GOD'S IMAGE, which is something that is NOT said for any other living thing. It doesn't preclude EVERYTHING being created by God, but it does present a very clear distinction between humans and every other creation.

b) God created the universe AND everything in it. I don't really think much about life anywhere other then on earth, because earth has enough that needs "fixing" that it just really isn't something that I focus on. But, if there IS other life, God created it.

**DigitalAssassin** · 01-06-2008, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gambit7

And again, how can you tout Creationism and then tout that the Earth was all that was created? That's an extreme example of an oxymoron right there. It makes absolutely no sense.

VERY good point. The Bible very clearly states, among other things, that God "created the heavens and the earth". I think, in that context, it's important to note it isn't just Heaven, it's heaven(S), which to me means everything BESIDES earth and the life on it. Not knowing specifically what all of that "everything besides" means doesn't negate it's existence. I choose to believe that if God wanted it, he created. If he didn't, he didn't. I don't need a laundry list of what WAS created or an understanding of all of it in order to believe in God. As a mere human, I can't hope to comprehend all of it to begin with.

If you believe in God, to put human constraints and limits on God is indeed a very arrogant thing to do, and indeed speaks AGAINST creationism, not for it.

**Gambit7** · 01-06-2008, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DigitalAssassin

If you believe in God, to put human constraints and limits on God is indeed a very arrogant thing to do, and indeed speaks AGAINST creationism, not for it.

Exactly. Unfortunately, the definition of organized Religion accomplishes just that; arbitrary rules and constraints for the "betterment" of mankind.

**DigitalAssassin** · 01-06-2008, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gambit7

Exactly. Unfortunately, the definition of organized Religion accomplishes just that; arbitrary rules and constraints for the "betterment" of mankind.

In many ways I agree. I don't like to force my beliefs on others, but use them as a conversation point, so I'll get into specifics.

I think for me it boils down to the "tainted" definition of the words "organized religion". I think many churches confine themselves to those same arbitrary rules and regulations and as a result they effectively create a 'God in a box' and impose their own limit on what God can do.

The church I am heavily involved in is part of a denomination, but is self governed and entirely staff and congregation led. We refuse to put a limit on what God can do by imposing a long list of rules and regulations that everyone must follow. Sure, we have a basic list of beliefs, so we are organized in that sense of the word, but as far as "traditional" religion, we are pretty much a polar opposite. God created EVERYTHING, you can't put a limit on something like that.

Yes, we are a very progressive church that uses lots of technology, but it's simply a relevant way to get across an ages old message, which goes back to this thread. Are we alone? I have absolutely no idea, but I know if we are not, that the only way the initial CREATION came about was because there was someone who CREATED it to begin with.

Belief in God isn't a matter of rules and regulations, it's about being authentic in your beliefs and one of those beliefs is that you as a human have limits to your understanding and ability. The God who created the universe doesn't.

tau_neutrino · 01-06-2008, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sordavie

I think you're just being uncareful with your words here. Evolution is not both a fact and a theory. There is such a thing as the theory of evolution and there are certain facts which we may call the facts of evolution. But they are not the same thing. A theory is a set of declarative statements. A fact is a state of affairs of the world. Those are very different kinds of things. Definitions are not facts. Definitions are statements.

Facts are what philosophers sometimes call 'truthmakers'. These are whatever makes declarative sentences true. The truthmaker for the sentence 'The Sun is 93 million miles from the Earth' is some way that the universe is--namely that the Sun a certain distance from the Earth. (Here I use single quote marks to denote that I'm talking about a sentence or statement.)

To see that theories and facts are wildly different kinds of things, first, consider that theories are mind-dependent while facts are mind-independent. That is to say there would still be facts even if there were no sentient beings in the universe, but there would be no theories. That's because sentences and statements are mind-dependent.

Second, consider that facts cannot be true or false while theories can. Truth and falsity are properties of sentences or statements. They are not properties of nonlinguistic things in the world. The Sun isn't true. Declarative sentences which describe the way the world is--the facts--accurately or correctly are said to be true. There is a fact about where my car is located right now. It is in the garage. This fact is what makes the statement 'my car is in the garage' true.

Third, consider that many scientific theories are mathematical models. These are attempts to model or describe how the world is. Mathematical models themselves are sets of mathematical sentences or statements. They are not facts. Again, this is because sets of sentences or statements are different kinds of things than facts are.

There are a set of statements that, taken together, are called the theory of evolution. These sentences are true just in case there are facts, such that the sentences accurately or correctly describes them. These facts, taken together, are called the facts of evolution.

This is the kind of confusion between reality and language is what leads some post modernists like Derrida to say crazy things like "all of reality is text" or "everything is language." These people confuse facts with sentences or statements.

Scientific theories are no different than other theories in this regard. They are sets of sentences which attempt to describe how the world is. In other words, theories are attempts to describe the facts. (Notice again that 'describe' is felicitous with 'sentence' or 'statement' but not with 'fact'. Theories or sentences or statements describe things. Facts do not describe things. Facts are things to be described. The things that do the describing are different than the things that are described.)

I think we have difference in semantics here. The definitions of fact and theory in the domain of science differ slightly compared to definitions in other domains.

Scientific theories are built upon facts and can establish facts, but they also describe how different facts relate to each other (especially so in a field such as biology which has so many variables). Also, scientific theories must be back up by data and repeated in many studies - a much more rigorous criterion than the mainstream use of the word 'theory'.

Anyhoo, back on topic!

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 01-06-2008, 07:12 PM

Quote:

I think that only daring speculation can lead us further and not accumulation of facts.

Albert Einstein.

sc1ence · 01-06-2008, 07:51 PM

I used to believe with probability one that there was intelligent life. But that argument was based on a wrongheaded assumption about the nature of infinitely expanding universe. My logic was
1. there is infinite space: therefore a potential infinite number of worlds this leads to intelligent life with probability 1. probability and infinity get pretty screwy.

More and more I am coming to think that there is just one universe, it has infinite bounds, but has finite mass. I have no clams to why I believe this other than introspection.

**Gambit7** · 01-06-2008, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sc1ence

I used to believe with probability one that there was intelligent life. But that argument was based on a wrongheaded assumption about the nature of infinitely expanding universe. My logic was
1. there is infinite space: therefore a potential infinite number of worlds this leads to intelligent life with probability 1. probability and infinity get pretty screwy.

More and more I am coming to think that there is just one universe, it has infinite bounds, but has finite mass. I have no clams to why I believe this other than introspection.

Well... many would disagree on there being just one universe. At the very least people are coming to grips with a higher-order and/or lower-order universe(s) coexisting within our own. Unfortunately, we cant measure it so it's just speculation right now. Physicists have determined there indeed is an "extra" bit of energy available in our Universe, but they're still not sure where it comes from.

I agree that the universe has "infinite bounds," but those bounds are binded within Time.. which in reality means they're not infinite. Since it's been established that the Universe has finite Energy/Mass and the Universe is expanding rapidly... one comes to the conclusion that eventually the Universe will "die" (as we know it) due to time and distance.

Now, moving on from that... we realize the Universe as we know it is a bit like a baby's view from the womb. It's extremely limited. For sure the Universe will be different, but I believe it's merely a change in interactions. By the time the Universe is heavily dispersed, Time and Distance may have no meaning and hence the available Energy is the same as it is today (it's just not as relatively dense). Relativity takes hold here.

The Challenge for us is learning to expand alongside the Universe, instead of sustaining mediocrity. If we cant cope, we'll perish and end up donating our mass to the greater Energy for someone(thing) else to use (which as far as we know is our ultimate destiny). Optimistically, we may also learn to shape the Universe to our own advantage... which to me is a much better prospect then looking up in the night's sky and seeing nothing but black. (talk about feeling alone)

I pose this interesting question. If the Universe has finite energy, then why not believe in reincarnation? Since we know there's no such thing as true Death, consciousness itself must indeed preserve its action potential somehow/somewhere.

Somewhat more on topic now. Some have said that the key to establishing a better understanding of the Universe (and communicating with its inhabitants) lies within our own Consciousness (and Unconscious minds). The Quantum interactions that take place to generate thoughts are themselves an interaction with the Universe IMO. That being the case, one could postulate it's possible to interact more easily by looking "inward" rather then trying to peer through a telescope (ala the "Traveler" from ST:TNG). There are many books looking into this modern view of consciousness, ripe with loads of equations I dont understand. But the jist of it is there. Consciousness and Spirituality may indeed be the key to our own true understanding of the Universe... once we hit the limits of physical technology.

Have I lost any of you yet?

**Rincewind** · 01-07-2008, 12:09 PM

**loyalguard** · 01-07-2008, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gambit7

...Some have said that the key to establishing a better understanding of the Universe (and communicating with its inhabitants) lies within our own Consciousness (and Unconscious minds)...But the jist of it is there... once we hit the limits of physical technology.

I think you bring up an important point that the search for scientific understanding (whether it be the search for extraterrestial life, a theory of "everything", or the nature of the human mind) requires a multi-discipline approach. The more scientific methods we apply, the better.

Oh, sorry, I can't resist quoting this whenever the topic of extraterrestial contact comes up:

Quote:

1A1B2Z
1A12B3Z
1A7B8Z
1A2B4Y

**RGM-79N_GM_CUstom** · 01-07-2008, 02:46 PM

On the religion topic. I feel something that flies under alot of people's radar is just how many religions mention beings that come down from the sky.

It's interesting since there are paleo-contact theories. Basically that aliens came and influenced human development in one way or another.

Daxx · 01-07-2008, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RGM-79N_GM_CUstom

It's interesting since there are paleo-contact theories. Basically that aliens came and influenced human development in one way or another.

Personally, I'm a fan of the "We're a long lost colony that forgot its origins" bit. Mostly cause I'm a Sci-Fi fan

**Gambit7** · 01-07-2008, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daxx

Personally, I'm a fan of the "We're a long lost colony that forgot its origins" bit. Mostly cause I'm a Sci-Fi fan

I actually had a theory that the best way to communicate and/or explore Extraterrestrial life was to examine our own DNA. Modern man arose 60,000 years ago and just beyond that we've still got a missing link.

Technically, it should be pretty easy to generate a possible alien likeness (and DNA profile) by figuring out what traits would be necessary to create modern man from ancient man. (i.e. assuming an alien species created modern man through breeding or experimentation) This effectively would fill in the "missing link" with an allien species (since none have been found on Earth).

For some dumb reason, no one in the scientific community (from what I can see) really tries to do this... they simply look to connect the evolutionary dots. As it stands now, there still is no solid connection from us to ancient man. Is there anything in the bible that says God created us from scratch? It just says he/she created us in his image... that doesnt mean he didnt use a creature he'd already created to produce us. Heck, women arose from man's "rib" right? I look at that as a source of DNA a deity/alien could manipulate into a woman (or some such thing).

So basically I'm saying, take ancient man and then take us. Subtract ancient man from us to generate an alien profile and see what we come up with. i.e. ancient man + extra-terrestrial(diety) = modern man

01-06-2008, 04:50 PM	#31 (permalink)
MagnaCentipede Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 1,957	Re: Are We Alone? "Facts are what philosophers sometimes call 'truthmakers'." Pizzas are what fraternity brothers sometimes call "bellyfillers." OM NOM NOM. /first thing that came to mind reading that. //goofy jargon makes me laugh. __________________

01-06-2008, 07:51 PM	#39 (permalink)
sc1ence Join Date: Feb 2007 Age: 36 Posts: 4,211	Re: Are We Alone? I used to believe with probability one that there was intelligent life. But that argument was based on a wrongheaded assumption about the nature of infinitely expanding universe. My logic was 1. there is infinite space: therefore a potential infinite number of worlds this leads to intelligent life with probability 1. probability and infinity get pretty screwy. More and more I am coming to think that there is just one universe, it has infinite bounds, but has finite mass. I have no clams to why I believe this other than introspection. __________________

01-07-2008, 12:09 PM	#41 (permalink)
Rincewind Join Date: May 2005 Location: Casting useless spells in Oklahoma. Age: 27 Posts: 2,997	Re: Are We Alone? __________________ ~~ Veritas simplex oratio est ~~ No matter how far a wizard goes, he will always come back for his hat. --T. Pratchett <---- You know you're getting old when you rely on your forum meta-data to remind you how old you are. Required Reading for all TG sandboxers

01-07-2008, 02:46 PM	#43 (permalink)
RGM-79N_GM_CUstom Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Paterson, New Jersey Age: 22 Posts: 2,165	Re: Are We Alone? On the religion topic. I feel something that flies under alot of people's radar is just how many religions mention beings that come down from the sky. It's interesting since there are paleo-contact theories. Basically that aliens came and influenced human development in one way or another. __________________ RX-78-2 Gundam EFSF Protoype Close Combat Mobile Suit Armor: Luna Titanium Armament: 2x Beam Sabers, 2x 60mm Head vulcan guns 380mm Hyper bazooka, Beam Rifle, Beam Javelin, Hyper Hammer, Gundam Hammer, shield TG Natural Selection admin. Need anything PM me. 7th Infantry FTW!!!!! "Snob? Nah...I consider myself more of a PC Evangelist...converting the heathens to The Way." Prophaniti "Windows is like Pokemon you gotta catch'em all." kenshinsama1

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links