It doesn’t make much sense to take a glass of water out of the ocean and conclude that, based on your data, there are no whales.
We’ve only punctured/scanned a small area of our cosmos within our galaxy, and already we see plenty of planets that would be good candidates for harboring life. That’s just in our own pocket of the galaxy, let alone the countless, untold swaths of galaxies that occupy our observable universe (and let alone what lies outside of that).
There’s just too much to explore. But, despite that, we know that planet/star formation is extraordinarily variegated. The odds of sentient life arising in multiple places is practically a certainty given the sheer number of trials. It’s entirely possible that advanced civilizations built themselves up a few billion years ago – and, in fact, it’s very likely to be true.
While the probability of sentience is currently unknown, odds are it’s quite high in absolute terms. And I mean, it makes sense with a universe that isn’t planned or created. If you wanted to have a universe that could spontaneously generate intelligent life, you’d need a hell of a lot of variety. Surprise, surprise – our universe offers just that with all its sheer size and countless combinations of cosmic systems.
Changing over time is a bit different from just randomly changing without any relationship to other stuff happening in the Universe. Gravity may well be weakening over time (I don’t know but I’ll go with your cite on this), however, even if we don’t know why yet, I “do believe” a discernable reason will be discovered at some point.
Yes data is nice but sometimes ideas is all we have to go on. If I had to wait for data to come in to think about things, I’d spent most of my time watching I Love Lucy reruns, waiting for data to come in. People generating ideas is what keeps the whole thing moving forward and more often than not initiates data gathering in the first place. Data is fine, but ideas get us through times of no data better than data gets us through times of no ideas.
Not really. but why is this such an apparent “huh” monent for you? If you think actual science progresses purely by gathering data first and then interpreting the data, you’d have to explain what motivates people to gather data in the first place. Everyone has ideas of how things might work. That isn’t the problem in science. The problem would come in and sometimes does, when you try to make the data fit your ideas.
More specifically, data gathering without some to point to it is, as should not come as a surprize, pointless. If you disagree, then go out and gather some data, pick anything, take a few years. Then when you have lots of data, have a look at it and see what you can make out of it. We are all motivated by ideas, please don’t suggest the opposite, that every researcher approaches the world with a blank slate.
Oh, I do too. I think that anything that is “indiscernible” is just something we don’t know enough about yet.
My point was just that these things we call “laws” might well prove not to be, which kind of undercuts the whole notion that the universe was designed just like this and just for us.
I don’t think that I ever claimed or meant to suggest that the Universe was designed like this, or designed just for us.
The Universe is this way because this is the way it is. What I did suggest is that a Universe with a slightly different starting condition, would not be the same, perhaps one where the conditions for consciousness to develop are not possible.
I did claim that our Universe is one where consciousness did develop, not a bad claim to make I think. I went one step further and claimed that this was inevitable, even if the individual events that occured are not pre-determined, the starting conditions are such that eventually, when the program had run long enough, with enough events occuring, that consicousness will arise, somewhere. If not on Earth, then on some other world, and quite likely many times over.
I think you have it completely backwards. Data comes first. Scientists didn’t posit the Earth was warming up and started logging temperatures to make sure. They logged temperatures because they could (and wanted to for other reasons), then noticed a pattern. *Then *they got to throw theories around to explain that weird data.
Without basic data, you can’t make an idea. Ideas don’t pop up ex nihilo. Only poetry does.
Ok, they still logged data for “other reasons”. In other words, they had reasons for logging data, they weren’t just logging data because that’s what scientist do, log data all day long and then go home in the hope that something interesting might develop.
Please go get a grant on the promise that if they will only let you log some data for a few years something interesting might come up.
You might turn out to be right if what happened on Earth is indeed the only such event in the Universe ever to happen, period. If it happens more than one time, many times in fact, then it is as inevitable as the emergence of stars, the elements, and the planets.
They logged temperatures so they could tell you how hot it is today. Simple as that.
But “scientists” *have *been recording random information because they could since the dawn of time. Look up how calendars got started for example. Or astronomical charts. Look up Newton-era scientists (Hooke, Boyle, these dudes), who did a lot of really weird shit just because they could and why not ?
Observation is the foundation of any scientific thought whatsoever. That is my thesis.
So here’s my challenge to you: provide me one, just the one, unique, lonesome example of discovery or innovation which was made with no prior investigation into the field whatsoever, no observation, no nothing. Just pure idea ex nihilo. Get set, go.
Yes, they do just that. They collect vast amounts of data and look for something interesting. Most of which isn’t very interesting, but they can’t know that before they look so they collect as much data as possible. There’s all sorts of sensors all over the world and in space that just sit there collecting data for years and decades on end, which is then sorted and correlated, compared and analyzed to see what can be discovered from it. And every so often, some person or machine notices something interesting; sometimes many years after the data was originally collected.
I think you are confusing the definition of “inevitable.” Inevitable means that something is CERTAIN to come about. Having sufficient conditions does not necessarily mean your outcome is guaranteed.
You could have sufficient conditions for making a basketball hoop from across the court (100 tries) but it may not be inevitable that you sink one. Maybe you’ll sink one if you have 10,000 tries? 100,000 tries? As you ramp up that number more and more, the chances of you sinking X number of hoops by chance alone becomes higher and higher. None of it is ever guaranteed – just more likely due to conditions and law of large numbers.
I will if you can show me where I made the claim you claim I made. I think you are reading intentions into my post that aren’t there. I’m only saying that we don’t just collect data for the sake of collecting data. If nothing else, we have a question to answer, and some ideas about what those answers might be. I don’t understand why that should be such as stumper of a statement for anyone.
And how did they get the funding to set up the sensors that do that? Did they say, we have two options to offer: measure world wide temperatures over time or measure the temperatures in our bathrooms over time. We don’t care which one it is, we just want money to measure termperatures somewhere, because we have faith that something interesting will come of it.
But the chance of sinking the ball at all is exactly zero if A) I don’t have a ball or B) the hoop is a mile away, or C) both. If the conditions aren’t there it will never happen, agreed.
Probability is a nice, but guaranteed if you give me a ball and a hoop in shootable distance, I will sink that sunker many times even blind folded.
