that dawkins, what'll he come up with next??

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

It can't be ascribed any sort of purpose, except through the operation of faith.

I ascribe this purpose in no objective sense. It is how I would use it. I use a bike to cycle, food to fuel me and a planet as the birth place of what I hope to be the future rulers of the galaxy.

Not faith, but hope. There's an important difference.

We are one species in a planetary ecosystem. We have, for the moment, absolutely no idea how we would reach and colonise another planet en masse.

What exactly do you mean en masse? We have loads of perfectly workable ideas on how to move hundreds of thousands of people, assuming human civilisation doesn't end within, say, a thousand years, its pretty much inevitable that we'll colonise other worlds.

This is not a stage, this is our home, and filling it with filth for no better reason that we can't be bothered to clean up our act is unbelievably stupid.

You're putting words in my mouth. I've been very clear using qualifiers like "If it comes to it" and "I'd like if that wasn't neccessary". Never did I say "If we're feeling lazy" or "y'know, for shits and giggles".

I'm not saying we should treat this planet as if its just a rest stop, but I do vehemently disagree with people who assert that the ecosystem is more worthy of continued existence than our species. And labelling us as "a plague" or "parasites" definately puts us in such a bracket.

Our lives are no more a dress rehearsal for the human conquest of the universe than they are for Heaven. You are living now, not in some future utopia that we may never reach - and that means that your responsibilities are here and now too.

Thats a lot of opinion stated as fact. Perhaps you have no like for the notion of our species leaving this planet, but its likely to happen, the technology is perfectly feasible, if embryonic at the moment. The fact that I personally will not live to see such a day does not mean I should plan/behave as if it won't happen.

Besides, could you not use the same position against one arguing for a greener ecosystem? Anything we do about our carbon emissions et all is not going to be noticeable for several generations. You are living now, not in some future utopia that we may never reach.

Dades

Zillah wrote:

We have loads of perfectly workable ideas on how to move hundreds of thousands of people, assuming human civilisation doesn't end within, say, a thousand years, its pretty much inevitable that we'll colonise other worlds.

Surely the only reason we would leave the planet en masse would be if we screwed it up. And if we left it because we screwed it up - what would that make us?

Zillah

The Atheist wrote:

Surely the only reason we would leave the planet en masse would be if we screwed it up. And if we left it because we screwed it up - what would that make us?

I wasn't using en masse, Scofflaw did. The reason a few hundred thousand people might like to leave the planet to colonise a new world are the same reasons the United States exists today.

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

I ascribe this purpose in no objective sense. It is how I would use it. I use a bike to cycle, food to fuel me and a planet as the birth place of what I hope to be the future rulers of the galaxy.

Not faith, but hope. There's an important difference.

Noted!

Zillah wrote:

What exactly do you mean en masse? We have loads of perfectly workable ideas on how to move hundreds of thousands of people, assuming human civilisation doesn't end within, say, a thousand years, its pretty much inevitable that we'll colonise other worlds.

En masse is in sufficient numbers to make such colonisation meaningful, and make abandoning the planet possible. At the moment, that would mean moving billions of people - which we would have to if we have scewed over the planetary ecosystem in pursuit of our goals. Or are they eggs too?

The speed of light remains, as far as we know, an absolute limit. You can believe that we will find a way round that, but that really is very much a belief. Therefore, any colonisation will require either suspended animation, or 'generation ships'. There will be no coming back, and little meaningful communication between colonised planets.

Nearly all SF futures are based on FTL travel. Your (apparent) belief that we will break the lightspeed limit is no less a matter of "human wishes dictate reality" than is a belief in the afterlife.

Zillah wrote:

You're putting words in my mouth. I've been very clear using qualifiers like "If it comes to it" and "I'd like if that wasn't neccessary". Never did I say "If we're feeling lazy" or "y'know, for shits and giggles".

I didn't actually mean that you did. However, your philosophy that "the needs of the human race outweigh the needs of anything else" tends to promote the breaking of eggs out of laziness.

Zillah wrote:

I'm not saying we should treat this planet as if its just a rest stop, but I do vehemently disagree with people who assert that the ecosystem is more worthy of continued existence than our species. And labelling us as "a plague" or "parasites" definately puts us in such a bracket.

OK - I'm with you on that one. It's a silly, self-flagellatory position that would lead rapidly to the domination of an "enlightened elite" for the "good of the planet".

Zillah wrote:

Thats a lot of opinion stated as fact. Perhaps you have no like for the notion of our species leaving this planet, but its likely to happen, the technology is perfectly feasible, if embryonic at the moment. The fact that I personally will not live to see such a day does not mean I should plan/behave as if it won't happen.

It doesn't mean you shouldn't, true. It does mean that because it maynot happen, you don't actually get any rights to do anything in the name of it.

The future will be some kind of omelette, but it may not be the one we are cooking - and there's only a limited number of eggs. You are working towards what you perceive as a good future - good! I agree that's a future that is both worthwhile and possible, and would happily work with you to achieve it, as long as you accept one thing - it may not happen, and therefore it doesn't give us the right to break any eggs.

Zillah wrote:

Besides, could you not use the same position against one arguing for a greener ecosystem? Anything we do about our carbon emissions et all is not going to be noticeable for several generations. You are living now, not in some future utopia that we may never reach.

Actually, that isn't the case. If we were to cut our emissions sharply, we would have an impact noticeable in the next 50 years - for which I certainly hope to be alive!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

En masse is in sufficient numbers to make such colonisation meaningful, and make abandoning the planet possible. At the moment, that would mean moving billions of people - which we would have to if we have scewed over the planetary ecosystem in pursuit of our goals. Or are they eggs too?

I was mostly thinking of our species as a whole, and I'll admit I didn't really think about those left behind very much. But again, I'm not talking about leaving the planet as a smoking ruin behind us for no good reason.

The speed of light remains, as far as we know, an absolute limit.
You can believe that we will find a way round that, but that really is very much a belief. Therefore, any colonisation will require either suspended animation, or 'generation ships'. There will be no coming back, and little meaningful communication between colonised planets.

Only in terms of raw physical propulsion. There are lots of theoretical means of propulsion that could skip the light barrier altogether, rather than break it. Right now they're mostly mathematical constructs, but the situation is not nearly so black and white as you maintain.

As for communication, again things aren't nearly so clear cut as you maintain. Quantum pairing has proven that there can be communication that transcends our conceptions of space. Again, its far far from being a usable technology but its an avenue of research that could yield incredible results.

Nearly all SF futures are based on FTL travel. Your (apparent) belief that we will break the lightspeed limit is no less a matter of "human wishes dictate reality" than is a belief in the afterlife.

As I have explained above, not so. Also, I'd appreciate it if you stopped so lightly comparing my position to that of religious believers. As I have explained each time you do it, it is not so and such comments are unfair strawmen at best, a deliberate effort to shame/annoy me at worst.

I didn't actually mean that you did. However, your philosophy that "the needs of the human race outweigh the needs of anything else" tends to promote the breaking of eggs out of laziness.

The future will be some kind of omelette, but it may not be the one we are cooking - and there's only a limited number of eggs. You are working towards what you perceive as a good future - good! I agree that's a future that is both worthwhile and possible, and would happily work with you to achieve it, as long as you accept one thing - it may not happen, and therefore it doesn't give us the right to break any eggs.

Of course it does! Eggs are broken in millions of ways every day for all sorts of human endeavours. Coal is burned, enriched uranium is smashed to bits, trees cut down, animals eaten, animals robbed of their fur and skin, forests burned, cows milked, seals speared, water polluted, mice, dogs and monkeys exposed to all sorts of horrors. You personally have taken part in pretty much all of those by living in Western society.

Tell me, what eggs am I not allowed break, and by what criteria are you deciding who, what and why?

Actually, that isn't the case. If we were to cut our emissions sharply, we would have an impact noticeable in the next 50 years - for which I certainly hope to be alive!

It'll probably be another generation or two before the main effects even manifest. The chances of you personally being affected by global warming are highly unlikely, let alone benefitting from the solution!

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

I was mostly thinking of our species as a whole, and I'll admit I didn't really think about those left behind very much. But again, I'm not talking about leaving the planet as a smoking ruin behind us for no good reason.

Fair enough!

Zillah wrote:

Only in terms of raw physical propulsion. There are lots of theoretical means of propulsion that could skip the light barrier altogether, rather than break it. Right now they're mostly mathematical constructs, but the situation is not nearly so black and white as you maintain.

It's pretty close, though. It's not like I don't want FTL, and haven't looked into it - it's more that I know several people who maintain that lightspeed can't be a barrier because we don't want it to be.

Zillah wrote:

As for communication, again things aren't nearly so clear cut as you maintain. Quantum pairing has proven that there can be communication that transcends our conceptions of space. Again, its far far from being a usable technology but its an avenue of research that could yield incredible results.

Sure - ansible communication. We're far closer to having something there (we're up to a couple of kilometres, I think) than FTL.

Zillah wrote:

As I have explained above, not so. Also, I'd appreciate it if you stopped so lightly comparing my position to that of religious believers. As I have explained each time you do it, it is not so and such comments are unfair strawmen at best, a deliberate effort to shame/annoy me at worst.

Oh, alright. It is meant to sting a little, but wasn't intended to really offend.

Zillah wrote:

Of course it does! Eggs are broken in millions of ways every day for all sorts of human endeavours. Coal is burned, enriched uranium is smashed to bits, trees cut down, animals eaten, animals robbed of their fur and skin, forests burned, cows milked, seals speared, water polluted, mice, dogs and monkeys exposed to all sorts of horrors. You personally have taken part in pretty much all of those by living in Western society.

All true.

Zillah wrote:

Tell me, what eggs am I not allowed break, and by what criteria are you deciding who, what and why?

Oh, you'll have to break some eggs, I'm sure. I mostly mean that such-and-such a belief in whatever future doesn't give a carte blanche.

Zillah wrote:

It'll probably be another generation or two before the main effects even manifest. The chances of you personally being affected by global warming are highly unlikely, let alone benefitting from the solution!

Climate change effects are already manifest, so I'm not sure why you think that?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

Scofflaw wrote:

It's pretty close, though. It's not like I don't want FTL, and haven't looked into it - it's more that I know several people who maintain that lightspeed can't be a barrier because we don't want it to be.

Yes but I'm not one of those am I? I maintain that lots of very smart theoretical physicists believe there a number of interesting avenues that might allow us to one day escape the light speed barrier.

Oh, you'll have to break some eggs, I'm sure. I mostly mean that such-and-such a belief in whatever future doesn't give a carte blanche.

...which I never asked for

Climate change effects are already manifest, so I'm not sure why you think that?

There are measureable, but minor changes in climate already. That doesn't mean that you or your quality of life has been affected in any meaningful sense. Its your grand children that will be running from rising tides and wearing sun block factor 50k.

Son Goku

Didn't notice this until know.......

Zillah wrote:

Yes but I'm not one of those am I? I maintain that lots of very smart theoretical physicists believe there a number of interesting avenues that might allow us to one day escape the light speed barrier.

They all failed sadly. That was the case in the late 80's, but it has been shown that all currently known laws of physics do not allow it and remember those laws of physics are capable of describing the evolution of the universe.

The point is that even though spacetime is possible of the shapes required for FTL, there is no matter in our universe capable of bending spacetime into those shapes. In fact if the kind of matter necessary existed, the universe would probably be a disaster zone as you can't prevent FTL machines from forming time machines.

Outside of the currently known laws of physics, things are even worse. One of the known features of Quantum Gravity (The attempt to make Gravity quantum mechanical), is that it really doesn't like time machines or FTL and specifically tries to kill attempts at making them.

As for communication, again things aren't nearly so clear cut as you maintain. Quantum pairing has proven that there can be communication that transcends our conceptions of space. Again, its far far from being a usable technology but its an avenue of research that could yield incredible results.

Only General Relativity could possibly allow for FTL or FTL communication, Relativistic Quantum Mechanics does not allow for either since it the assumption that it can't happen is built into its mathematical structure. Information transmitted through Quantum pairing (Quanglement Information) can never be used to communicate faster than light, due to the measurement principle.


However the case for going slower than light is not nearly as bad as people think. Velocities in relativity do not work the same as in Newtonian physics. For instance you could reach Alpha Centauri in what seemed like five minutes to you, due to time dilation and length contraction. For instance at 0.9999c Alpha Centauri is only about half a light year away.


Anyway sorry for ranting, it's one of my main interests.

Zillah

Son Goku wrote:

However the case for going slower than light is not nearly as bad as people think. Velocities in relativity do not work the same as in Newtonian physics. For instance you could reach Alpha Centauri in what seemed like five minutes to you, due to time dilation and length contraction. For instance at 0.9999c Alpha Centauri is only about half a light year away.

True, but everything and everyone you love will die of age and vanish in those five minutes


Speaking of quantum gravity, don't they not have a working model for it yet? I was under the impression they couldn't be sure of any of it until they can reconcile general relativity and quantum models of the universe?

I'm not contesting what you're saying, just that my impressions had been at odds with what you're saying.

Son Goku

Zillah wrote:

Speaking of quantum gravity, don't they not have a working model for it yet? I was under the impression they couldn't be sure of any of it until they can reconcile general relativity and quantum models of the universe?

I'm not contesting what you're saying, just that my impressions had been at odds with what you're saying.

Although we don't understand the full blown theory, we do understand its "first order effects". That is the physical consequences as Quantum Gravity begins to manifest itself partially.
Only the Big Bang requires the full theory.

Although General Relativity allows for the creation of time machines and FTL, when you take these First Order Quantum Gravity (which I'll call FOQG) effects into account, there begins to be a struggle.

Basically regions of space where FTL and time travel are possible are called fountains. When these are first formed they begin to grow, until they reach a certain size (always very small). At that size, the laws of General Relativity try to make them keep growing, but the FOQG effects suddenly appear and attempt to crush the fountain. They basically always win and the fountain is crushed.

However the thing is, maybe the full blown Quantum Gravity theory will allow the fountains to grow. As I said before the full blown theory only operates at the Big Bang, so any fountains that exist in reality can only be relics of the Big Bang and can never be manufactured, because they'll always be killed for the reasons given above.

I hope that explains things.
(I think it's a really interesting idea that Quantum Gravity only manifests itself in the present universe to kill fountains.)

Scofflaw

Son Goku wrote:

Although we don't understand the full blown theory, we do understand its "first order effects". That is the physical consequences as Quantum Gravity begins to manifest itself partially.
Only the Big Bang requires the full theory.

Although General Relativity allows for the creation of time machines and FTL, when you take these First Order Quantum Gravity (which I'll call FOQG) effects into account, there begins to be a struggle.

Basically regions of space where FTL and time travel are possible are called fountains. When these are first formed they begin to grow, until they reach a certain size (always very small). At that size, the laws of General Relativity try to make them keep growing, but the FOQG effects suddenly appear and attempt to crush the fountain. They basically always win and the fountain is crushed.

However the thing is, maybe the full blown Quantum Gravity theory will allow the fountains to grow. As I said before the full blown theory only operates at the Big Bang, so any fountains that exist in reality can only be relics of the Big Bang and can never be manufactured, because they'll always be killed for the reasons given above.

I hope that explains things.
(I think it's a really interesting idea that Quantum Gravity only manifests itself in the present universe to kill fountains.)

Feel free to explain this at the greatest possible length!

sincerely,
Scofflaw

Mike...

Who Knows but he did sleep with a man in south park...

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

It'll probably be another generation or two before the main effects even manifest. The chances of you personally being affected by global warming are highly unlikely, let alone benefitting from the solution!

Hmm. Here's the summary from the latest IPCC report. Note how many times impacts will be noticeable by 2020 - that's in 13 years, folks!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tar.Aldarion

Personally, I believe that we are equal with other species of animals. It is natural to be biased, and I am biased in favour of non-human species. Weird eh?
Humans are the only species that inflict pain, knowing it to be pain. We treat other animals in such an unpardonable nature that I am disgusted on a daily basis. Species seem to be given unique evolutionary advantages for survival, our most important one is intelligence, which we don't use as well as we should. We have responsibilities that come with intelligence, yet we needlessly kill billions of 'lesser' animals every year, for our pleasure, leaving over a billion of our own species starving.
A human that I do not love, if seen in the street, is just another animal to me, one that is a lot more harmful than any opther species on the planet, and I feel no 'special' love for a human just because it is the same species as myself. I would find it easier to kill a human than another species of animal, it is more capable of looking after itself, more intelligent, more malicious, more dangerous and of course, I'm an odd chap.

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated... To my mind, the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being."
-Mahatma Gandhi, statesman and philosopher

Son Goku

Scofflaw wrote:

Feel free to explain this at the greatest possible length!

sincerely,
Scofflaw

It's referred to as the "defense in depth" strategy. The universe is "happy" to let General Relativity govern things until the point where GR is unable to stop a time machine* growing, at which point FOQG will always be switched on. However it will only be switched on until it fixes the problem.
Once the fountain has reached a configuration or state where GR would be able to kill it, FOQG turns itself off and allows GR to proceed.

A simple example is wormhole time machines. Let's say you set up a wormhole such that if its mouths are within ten light years of eachother the wormhole functions as a time machine. If you then try to move the mouths to within ten light years they'll either:
(A) Suddenly gain positive charge and repel eachother. The charge is again gained from FOQG effects.
(B) If you manage to keep grounding the charge so that it'll never build up, the act of grounding the charge causes other subtle FOQG effects to destroy the wormhole interior.

In 1983-1985, Igor Novikov found that there were a small class of time machines that FOQG stays away from. However these time machines always correspond to "You are your own grandfather" situations. That is they only allow travel into the past so that you may cause the past events that have been recorded in history.

So to sum up, General Relativity is allowed to operate on its own until as long as it either makes no time machines or only Novikov-style "self-satisfying" time-machines, anything else and FOQG comes in.

Wierd stuff, make of it what you will.

*Time Machines and Faster than light travel go hand in hand, so I'll just speak about time machines.

(A final wierd fact is that the universe is really against letting full blown Quantum Gravity show its face. It always hides it behind black hole event horizons.)

JoeB-

John Cramer as of January 2007 was intending to run an experiment to do with retro causality but he has run into funding difficulties.

Some info on the following link about half way down..
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/21/ING5LNJSBF1.DTL

There was a page from the BBC on this but I can't find it. It appears to me that it is an experiment worth doing and Cramer believes it to be worthwhile.

I'd love to hear your opinion on this Son Goku, I have always been most impressed by your knowledge of these areas. (I was intending to start a thread with links in the physics forum, I may well do anyway to give everyone a chance to contribute)

As far as making a space colony go (can't spell colonizontion? or colonies? lol) I reckon it could be done today! If the people who went managed to constantly accelerate they should reach another star in their lifetime... obviously there are big problems but I don't think they're insurmountable. But the people obviously couldn't come back, still there would be 1,000's of volunteers, me included.

Cheers
Joe

Myksyk

Citizen_Erased wrote:

... and ultimately our superior intelligence ... does lead to the conclusion that we are superior which can easily be interpretted as us being more valuable.

Slippery slope ... equating intelligence with value. you'd have to presumably apply that within our species too with obvious ramifications.

Tar.Aldarion

If somebody equates the intelligence of an animal as to it's worth, I feel free to equate their IQ to my own and determine their worth. Seems fair.

pandaqueen

Why do we need to 'draw the line' anywhere? Surely all life has a right to live!

There are those who think we can 'use' animals for our own ends... for eating their flesh, for wearing their skins, for our entertainment etc etc

Being as thinking, feeling animals were on this earth long before we were & humans are the ones completely runing this planet.... I know who has more right to be here!

JC 2K3

pandaqueen wrote:

Why do we need to 'draw the line' anywhere? Surely all life has a right to live!

What about plants?

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

If somebody equates the intelligence of an animal as to it's worth, I feel free to equate their IQ to my own and determine their worth. Seems fair.

I totally and utterly agree.

I'm 156, how about you?

Scofflaw

JC 2K3 wrote:

I totally and utterly agree.

I'm 156, how about you?

Somewhat higher, last time I looked. I can condemn you, if you like?

cordially,
Scofflaw

pandaqueen

JC 2K3 wrote:

What about plants?

I totally and utterly agree.

I'm 156, how about you?

The question about plants... you coulda thought of something more original, I can't count how many times that ones been shouted at me!
Plants DON'T think, feel pain, emotions, fear etc.

Wow! Are you really 156, pretty cool that you still have the ability to use a computer... I ain't quite at the century yet

Scofflaw

pandaqueen wrote:

The question about plants... you coulda thought of something more original, I can't count how many times that ones been shouted at me!
Plants DON'T think, feel pain, emotions, fear etc.

That we know of or understand...

cordially,
Scofflaw

pandaqueen

I know I'm not taking life in the real sense of the word by eating veggies,fruit, pulses etc.

Have a good night y'all

Zillah

pandaqueen wrote:

Plants DON'T think, feel pain, emotions, fear etc.

As we know them, no. You'll notice that you're according the right to live to things that are most like us. A human gets a 4 on the life scale, an animal 3, a plant a 2 and a rock a 1... Its a bit homocentric of you...

Dades

I'm thinking that cow I ate part of last night would probably never have existed, had she not been destined for someone's plate. Who are we to selfishly deny them an existence because our overdeveloped conscience?

PDN

The Atheist wrote:

I'm thinking that cow I ate part of last night would probably never have existed, had she not been destined for someone's plate. Who are we to selfishly deny them an existence because our overdeveloped conscience?

If we weren't meant to eat animals then why did God make them out of meat?

Red Hand

What's the deal here? Why is eating animals so bad? Why is a nervous system of such importance?

Somebody mentioned eating plants a few posts up. If plants had a nervous system, would vegetarians eat them? Isn't there a particular type of plant that folds it's leaves up tightly if brushed by an animal?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitive_plant

I know that it's not a nervous system, but it responds to the stimulus of touch.

Dades

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

Somebody mentioned eating plants a few posts up. If plants had a nervous system, would vegetarians eat them? Isn't there a particular type of plant that folds it's leaves up tightly if brushed by an animal?

Yes, but plants don't have big brown eyes.

Red Hand

The Atheist wrote:

Yes, but plants don't have big brown eyes.

Genetic engineering could soon solve that.:)