It was OK but it fails to recognise that there are limits, limits as to what is possible in a universe constrained by the laws of physics and by what we as human beings are capable of comprehending. This isn't negativity or pessimism, it is a statement of fact. (Maybe X-Factor has led us to believe that if we want something hard enough we can have it) The universe, measured on the scale of humanity, is beyond vast. When we look out into space we are observing the past; if a spaceship was sent at the speed of light it would, for all practical purposes, quickly disappear by moving beyond our effective communication horizon. So, again, why has SETI failed to detect intelligent life ?
^ just as I didn't get an answer to my 'after oil' question (and why should i? it's a thread about Mars) I should start a thread asking that very question.
What we do after oil is a very good question. However oil will never "run out", and anyway we can make it if we really want it, it will just get harder to find and prohibitively expensive. Build nuclear for now.
I chose my words carefully, people. If you are worried about the use of "math", you won't be troubled by the deeper message. I'd hate to trouble anyone Btw, is "maths" short for "mathsematics"? I was never sure.
You've pretty much answered your own question: ze universe iz too big! A quick look on Wikipedia: apparently there are about 56 stars which are super close neighbours - within about 16 light years. So if we sent them a message, they got it and sent one back, you'd be looking at, say between a decade and 32 years for a response by "return of post". Although the universe is immeasurably vast, 56 stars and their planets to choose from isn't very vast. The chances of stumbling across someone who could reply to you in the time frame is miniscule. Ah, but SETI (which seems to have been going in some sort of form for the last 50 years) listens to anything, not just replies to our messages, so why haven't we heard anything? That's a bit like saying, did you hear that radio show from Radio Islamabad that was broadcast on the 8th of July 1970 at 9am? They may have broadcast it, but what are the chances that you tuned in to that frequency on that date? Maybe extraterrestrial life has been broadcasting for a million years from somewhere, but that the last of that data stream passed us by in 1482. The chances in our minuscule technological lifespan of picking something up are equally minuscule even if there are no end of messages floating around. And if we did get one and replied, our return postcard would likely never be received as the recipient would have popped his clogs a few millennia before we ever got the message. I also find it amusing that people think that contact with alien civilisations would be a good thing. It would either be a good thing, or a bad thing. It seems to me that the chances of it being a bad thing are at least 50-50. We would find that we would be the junior partners in that relationship and that is never a great thing to be.
Do you think that "the laws of physics" of the 18th Century could have allowed for much of our technology now? How about those of the 19th Century? Will our scientific knowledge effectively stagnant so that the 22nd Century looks essentially the same as the 20th and 21st Centuries? How about the 25th? Or will we all die within the next 150 years? If so, better start giving up now, eh? You seem to believe that we have achieved virtually full knowledge of the physical world, that there are no further "laws" to discover. The "laws of physics" are merely descriptions of our understanding of the physical Universe. They aren't fixed constants, they represent our current understanding of observed phenomena. It is entirely possible that our understanding is incomplete in general and inaccurate in specifics. I'm not saying that we haven't cracked it and that we don't essentially know all that there is to know but it would be foolish to assert unequivocally that this is the case. We cannot even account for the creation of galaxies without resorting to the posit that there is a material present (dark matter) which we have never directly observed. There are factors in the theory of the Big Bang that require the existence of dark energy, a phenomenon which we have again, never directly observed. Sounds to me like there's a lot of wiggle room in our understanding. As for SETI having failed to find anything? Really? That's proof of anything? It's thought provoking, but that's all. It's data, or more properly an absence of data. Good luck proving anything based on that alone. Here's another thought for you. Do you believe in the human soul? As described by religions or as a supernatural agency that is linked with, but distinct from, the physical body and which is something that is exclusively human. If yes, I can understand better where you are coming from. If not, do you believe that it will be possible to create a human intelligence using technology? I'm not speaking of robots who will one day rise up and slay their human masters, I mean people's consciousness in an artificial environment. I mention this because, if it's possible to duplicate/accommodate human thoughts in this way, the question of human migration into the galaxy becomes several orders of magnitude simpler. Or we could stop thinking about any of this stuff, so our heads don't hurt.
Of course I used an Americanism. I always do, when the word they use is correct compared to the English version. Back on topic, folks! Don't be distracted!
This is about the contrast between natural and supernatural phenomena. In the natural universe, there may well be many types of effects, forces, fields, substances, or particles of which we know nothing - so far. But these are in principle susceptible of enquiry. Future generations may find ways of observing and experimenting with all manner of phenomena, and utilising them, which are hard for us to imagine. We can however speculate about where scientific and technological endeavour may lead. Dismissing all such possibilities out of hand is surely too bold. Then there is the world of imagination. Supernatural phenomena are slippery concepts, because their characteristics are never defined and can be anything anyone says. Gods, demons, ghosts, angels, heaven, etc are in principle immune to enquiry. Their existence is a matter of faith, not of facts. No kind of scientific investigation can possibly establish any facts about them, because they are fictional; they exist in human imaginations, not in the observable universe. I can proclaim that no-one in future will ever prove that god, Sherlock Holmes, or Harry Potter exists in the real world, because they are inventions not discoveries. And yes, I am pretty confident about that.
I think I should clarify my position, as it may seem confused: I am in favour of lots of scientific space exploration. I think we are scratching the surface of discovery and understanding currently. I don't mind much if there is a manned mission to Mars. It will be interesting, but I doubt it will create a quantum leap in our knowledge or understanding. I am against projects for permanent space colonies, if these are viewed as possible saviours for mankind. I don't think we will ever travel very far at all in interstellar terms. In fact, I don't think we will ever visit other stars owing to the limitations of our biology and the distances involved. So that's a no to interstellar travel. I don't think we will ever encounter alien life forms. I reckon this is a positive thing.
Absolutely. The discoveries of science are in principle disprovable (not including mathematics and logic, obviously). Scientists devote their lives to trying to do exactly that. Any given scientific law or theory is liable to be superseded by a more sophisticated later discovery. It is their disprovability which makes them true. Religious doctrines are never disprovable in principle. Each doctrine is proclaimed to be permanent and immutable. Religions deny that their revelations can ever be superseded. Religionists devote their lives to preventing their doctrines from being overturned. It is their lack of disprovability which makes them useless.
Not a lot to object to, here. However, for there to be any form of human space exploration employing technologies currently unknown, there must first be techniques for human survival in space. The time for this groundwork is now - we don't know when we will need it, nor how long it will take to perfect it. Apollo was part of the groundwork, but as has been suggested here in this thread - Apollo was baby steps. Scientific advancement has often come as the result of experiments for which no practical use has envisaged or expected.
We don't know what the future will bring, and it is probably just as well. What we do know is that the 21st Century is nothing like what was being forecast 50 years ago. Science has followed an iterative process to where we are today, there have been great strides made with one or two backward steps, no doubt that process will continue but much of what has gone before is secure, it has stood the test of time. Also there are several constants that are used to describe the universe that if they were only slightly different would mean than we would not be here. Maybe we are approaching the limit of what we as humans can understand and life will have to evolve further before it is capable of understanding more, maybe we are the equivalent of Professor Martin Rees's ants on the Empire State Building. So here he is Martin Rees: Is this our final century? | Talk Video | TED.com
Perhaps we are approaching the limits of what we can do and what we can understand. Perhaps not. What is for certain is that we have reached the end if we believe we have reached the end.
