Originally posted by One Free Man
I believe that in the vast multitude of the multiple universes and dimensions life must exist somewhere. We barely have a percent of the scientific picture of the universe.
Multiple universes is barely theoretical, currently one of the most spurious interpretations of QM, and multi-dimensions, in the way you are using it, is science fiction
Originally posted by Sith Master X
Exactly. There are supposedly more stars then there are grains of sand on every beach combined. It'd be kind of a waste of space if we were the only life forms in the universe.
yes, but the origins of life possibly require very specific conditions. While there are more stars than one could count, that says nothing about the conditions on the bodies orbiting that star.
The argument that there is so much space is actually not an argument for anything. It is an appeal to ignorance (we don't know, so there must be), which is a logical fallacy.
Luckily I subscribe to the theory of incomplete measures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_incomplete_measurements
Originally posted by inimalistWe don't have the origin of life in any way shape or form. the big bang theory and/or abiogenesis is as unbelieveable as ID or Scientology. Thus: we don't know how life began, thus we can't say that the origins require specific conditions. There might even be life that is dependent on other factors than oxygen and our temperature and food and water. If evolution is to be assumed valid, it would be very narrow-minded to assume that all evolution would be similar to ours. Either way we both are assuming logical fallacies: Negative proof fallacy: that, because a premise cannot be proven false, the premise must be true; or that, because a premise cannot be proven true, the premise must be false.
yes, but the origins of life possibly require very specific conditions. While there are more stars than one could count, that says nothing about the conditions on the bodies orbiting that star.The argument that there is so much space is actually not an argument for anything. It is an appeal to ignorance (we don't know, so there must be), which is a logical fallacy.
Originally posted by inimalistInteresting theory. Here's my incomplete understanding: we ought to re-examine the mathematical language of our measurements. This will give us perspective on this language and how it affects our perceptions and beliefs. In other words, Relativity and QM, eg, are currently irreconcilable because we're looking at them the "wrong" way.
Luckily I subscribe to the theory of incomplete measureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_incomplete_measurements
Originally posted by One Free Man
We don't have the origin of life in any way shape or form. the big bang theory and/or abiogenesis is as unbelieveable as ID or Scientology. Thus: we don't know how life began, thus we can't say that the origins require specific conditions. There might even be life that is dependent on other factors than oxygen and our temperature and food and water. If evolution is to be assumed valid, it would be very narrow-minded to assume that all evolution would be similar to ours. Either way we both are assuming logical fallacies: Negative proof fallacy: that, because a premise cannot be proven false, the premise must be true; or that, because a premise cannot be proven true, the premise must be false.
I'm making no such claims
my argument is very simple. We have no idea how common life is in the universe because, as you pointed out, we don't know the absolute requirements for life.
Rather, you should take what I'm saying as "the fact that there is a lot a space is irrelevant to the discussion".
Originally posted by Mindship
Interesting theory. Here's my incomplete understanding: we ought to re-examine the mathematical language of our measurements. This will give us perspective on this language and how it affects our perceptions and beliefs. In other words, Relativity and QM, eg, are currently irreconcilable because we're looking at them the "wrong" way.
I barely understand QM myself, so my opinion is really not worth much, but yes, my feelings are that as we uncover better ways to measure events the "strangeness" of QM will evaporate.
However, I would add a cultural level to the theory, as we live in a world where real science is not nearly as salient to the common person as fake science (this thread being a prime example), and the public has come to expect the most bizarre things from QM. Researchers are then almost being encouraged to describe QM in the most "OMFG" terms and to uncover things that appear to make no sense at all. The goal appears, to me at least, to make QM seem more fantastical rather than to explain any of the weirdness in more banal terms.
Originally posted by inimalist
However, I would add a cultural level to the theory, as we live in a world where real science is not nearly as salient to the common person as fake science (this thread being a prime example), and the public has come to expect the most bizarre things from QM. Researchers are then almost being encouraged to describe QM in the most "OMFG" terms and to uncover things that appear to make no sense at all. The goal appears, to me at least, to make QM seem more fantastical rather than to explain any of the weirdness in more banal terms.