Sci - Goldilocks planet is no fairytale

[mellie]

Why are you people smoking weed at this ungodly hour of the morning....and more to the point, why are you not passing it around so others may get the gist of what you are saying.

I'm not a smoker of pot, (I tried it once many many years ago and burned a hole in a friends lounge * accident-prone*) but think on this one occasion I could be persuaded to give it another crack if I have to sit here and read much more of this **** for the next 2 hours.





Take me to your leader annie.... beam me up Nova!

[AiA in Atlanta]

"Interestingly, even a cosmic intelligence conceived of in the most crude and childish manner - perhaps as bigheaded scientists named Yacub sitting behind the cosmic console, actually twiddling knobs - is more likely than pure randomness resulting in that one chance in 10123. From a strictly rational standpoint, the existence of God is not more improbable than the existence of blind laws of nature. Indeed, some have made the point that it is logically incoherent to argue over whether or not a higher intelligence exists in the universe. Rather, if such a higher intelligence is even philosophically possible, then it is logically necessary, as compared with the alternative, that is, the almost impossible odds against randomness resulting in such fantastic order and complexity.

Robert Godwin

[AiA in Atlanta]

"Take the standard notion that wings simply evolved from forelegs.
It takes perhaps a hundred mutations to produce a functional wing
from a leg--a half-wing will not do. A half-wing is no good as a leg
and no good as a wing--you can't run and you can't fly. It has no
adaptive value whatsoever. In other words, with a half-wing you are
dinner. This will work only if these hundred mutations HAPPEN
ALL AT ONCE in one animal--and also these SAME mutations must occur
SIMULATANEOUSLY in another animal of the opposite sex, and then they
have somehow find each other, have dinner, a few drinks, mate, and
have offspring with real functional wings."

Ken Wilbur

[AiA in Atlanta]

Full Ken Wilbur quote for those interested:

"The standard, glib, neo-Darwinian explanation of natural
selection--ABSOLUTELY NOBODY [my emphasis] believes this anymore.
Evolution clearly operates by Darwinian natural selection, but this
process simply selects those transformations that have already
occurred by mechanisms that ABSOLUTELY NOBODY [my emphasis]
understands....."

"Take the standard notion that wings simply evolved from forelegs.
It takes perhaps a hundred mutations to produce a functional wing
from a leg--a half-wing will not do. A half-wing is no good as a leg
and no good as a wing--you can't run and you can't fly. It has no
adaptive value whatsoever. In other words, with a half-wing you are
dinner. This will work only if these hundred mutations HAPPEN
ALL AT ONCE in one animal--and also these SAME mutations must occur
SIMULATANEOUSLY in another animal of the opposite sex, and then they
have somehow find each other, have dinner, a few drinks, mate, and
have offspring with real functional wings."

"Talk about mind-boggling. This IS INFINITELY, ABSOLUTELY, UTTERLY
MIND-BOGGLING [my emphasis]. Random mutations cannot even begin to
explain this. The vast, vast majority of mutations are lethal
anyway; how are we going to get a hundred nonlethal mutations
happening simultaneously? Or even four or five, for that matter? But
once this incredible transformation has occurred, then natural
selection will indeed select the better wings from the less workable
wings--but the wings themselves? NOBODY HAS A CLUE [my emphasis]."

"For the moment, EVERYBODY [my emphasis] has simply agreed to call
this "quantum evolution" or "punctuated evolution" or "emergent
evolution"--radically novel and emergent and incredibly complex
holons come into existence in a huge leap, in a quantum-like
fashion--with NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER OF INTERMEDIATE FORMS [my
emphasis]. Dozens or hundreds of simulataneous nonlethal mutations
have to happens at the same time in order to survive at all--the
wing, for example, or the eyeball."

[boxy]

"Interestingly, even a cosmic intelligence conceived of in the most crude and childish manner - perhaps as bigheaded scientists named Yacub sitting behind the cosmic console, actually twiddling knobs - is more likely than pure randomness resulting in that one chance in 10123. From a strictly rational standpoint, the existence of God is not more improbable than the existence of blind laws of nature. Indeed, some have made the point that it is logically incoherent to argue over whether or not a higher intelligence exists in the universe. Rather, if such a higher intelligence is even philosophically possible, then it is logically necessary, as compared with the alternative, that is, the almost impossible odds against randomness resulting in such fantastic order and complexity.

Robert Godwin

This whole line of thought ignores the fact that for a being to question the improbability of the "perfect universe" that it finds it self in, it must (with 100% certainty) live, and have evolved in, such a "perfect universe". Any universe which doesn't have the capacity to support life, will not produce observers.



If a universe exists for countless billions of years without someone to observe any part of it... did it ever really exist?

[boxy]

"Take the standard notion that wings simply evolved from forelegs.
It takes perhaps a hundred mutations to produce a functional wing
from a leg--a half-wing will not do. A half-wing is no good as a leg
and no good as a wing--you can't run and you can't fly. It has no
adaptive value whatsoever. In other words, with a half-wing you are
dinner. This will work only if these hundred mutations HAPPEN
ALL AT ONCE in one animal--and also these SAME mutations must occur
SIMULATANEOUSLY in another animal of the opposite sex, and then they
have somehow find each other, have dinner, a few drinks, mate, and
have offspring with real functional wings."

Ken Wilbur

Emu.
Kiwi.
Ostrich.

Totally invalid argument against evolution.

[AiA in Atlanta]

http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of-ac ... ng-returns

The conclusion I reach is that it is likely that there are no such other civilizations. In other words, we are in the lead. That’s right, our humble civilization with its Dodge pick up trucks, fried chicken fast food, and ethnic cleansings (and computation!) is in the lead.

Now how can that be? Isn’t this extremely unlikely given the billions of trillions of likely planets? Indeed it is very unlikely. But equally unlikely is the existence of our Universe with a set of laws of physics so exquisitely precisely what is needed for the evolution of life to be possible. But by the Anthropic principle, if the Universe didn’t allow the evolution of life we wouldn’t be here to notice it. Yet here we are. So by the same Anthropic principle, we’re here in the lead in the Universe. Again, if we weren’t here, we would not be noticing it.

Let’s consider some arguments against this perspective.

Perhaps there are extremely advanced technological civilizations out there, but we are outside their light sphere of intelligence. That is, they haven’t gotten here yet. Okay, in this case, SETI will still fail because we won’t be able to see (or hear) them, at least not before we reach Singularity.

Perhaps they are amongst us, but have decided to remain invisible to us. Incidentally, I have always considered the science fiction notion of large space ships with large squishy creatures similar to us to be very unlikely. Any civilization sophisticated enough to make the trip here would have long since passed the point of merging with their technology and would not need to send such physically bulky organisms and equipment. Such a civilization would not have any unmet material needs that require it to steal physical resources from us. They would be here for observation only, to gather knowledge, which is the only resource of value to such a civilization. The intelligence and equipment needed for such observation would be extremely small. In this case, SETI will still fail because if this civilization decided that it did not want us to notice it, then it would succeed in that desire. Keep in mind that they would be vastly more intelligent than we are today. Perhaps they will reveal themselves to us when we achieve the next level of our evolution, specifically merging our biological brains with our technology, which is to say, after the Singularity. Moreover, given that the SETI assumption implies that there are millions of such highly developed civilizations, it seems odd that all of them have made the same decision to stay out of our way.

[boxy]

It would be nice to think that we will only get more and more intelligent, reasonable and peaceful, but that's just not how evolution works. There is no path that evolution follows, only what is successful at continuing to produce more copies of the genes. And the way I see it, aggression and expansionism are traits that will see societies push towards space travel. I don't see any hippies getting there, unless they hitch a ride with capitalist pigs and megalomaniacal "go getters".

[AiA in Atlanta]

Annie, Boxy, Swami et al, here is your religion:

Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.

[Super Nova]

Annie, Boxy, Swami et al, here is your religion:

Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.

That's would be my definition too. Not a religion. However I would not call it a religion, that's where the line is drawn. The need for a religion is a cultural thing that allowed the uneducated massed to be control, in the past and now.