|
Are We Real? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Paul Wilson |
| quote: | Originally posted by patticus
actually, paul likes ME. because i like fragma. |
Very true! |
|
|
| Nastra Azzurro |
WOOOOOOW
Actually when I went to bed yesterday I started thinkin like that again.
I used to think like that a lot when my life was a mess when i was at school and was miserable.... I got very scared and miserable. Thinking what is the point.. The meaning of life. It sucks......LIFE!! well it does.....Its just a periode of time that is mostly un enjoyable activities.... Everytime you do something fun its over in a flash and all ur left with is memories...
I go crazy when i think.ok where do we come from... The big bang...OK where was the big bang at... What was it in Before the bang our universe was the size of a little marble. Or sumthing....Well where was the marble in...NOTHING WTF..no way.... WHO the hell decided to put life on earth and why....So that they could destroy it again...and why am I a human and not an insect....Why have humans taken over the world.. Who created us .GOD?? bollocks The divine...well where is the divine....Do they have their own galaxy that we dont see....If there were no humans where would the divine be...uhm dunno... What about the endless universe...there is no end??? There u go on forever and ever WHERE TO????? Where do u go when u die... To heaven bull!!! U dont go anywhere u just see black (LOL) ... I go crazy when I ask myself this....Like y am i me and why r u u WTF...
Oe oe I wanna do sumthing fun
Ok u did it well its over now what....all u got is the stupid memories...
Life is all about memories...Cause in the end u die with nuffin more than u were born with Except the bloody memories....
If thats what life is about then it sux....and why do animals LIVE
They Eat sleep hunt fight mate day in day out all of their lives and then they die WHY!!!!!!! y the would u want that... It al bloody molecules..What good reason does a mivin body have on the WHole universe...maybe we could create a big bang NOTTTT
This really s me up..........
But what s me up even more I cant explain...Its even worse than this....
ok ill stfu now
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaah
teqno rulez btw!!!!!!! |
|
|
| Miss Proximus |
And Paul likes the Police Acadamy series......and Insp. Morse....and Jessica Fletcher :p
j/k Paul...I think it's funny how you can get so pissed off by peeps you don't even know :) |
|
|
| goldenarmZ |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
you'll realise that the probability that these exact kinds of atoms met up as to form the first cell is very unlikely (we're talking the odds of you winning the lottery every week for the rest of your life or something).
If we add to this the genuity of something like a human cell, that knows how to build an entire human body, how to repair it and operate it I think it's clear that something must have pushed this development. |
probability is irrelevant... the universe is infinite, so it has to happen somewhere :)
This type of discussion is what I would call a "head" nobody will ever be able to answer these questions... EVER. to try and get your brain round it is an excercise in futility... you'll just give yourself a headache :) |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by goldenarmZ
probability is irrelevant... the universe is infinite, so it has to happen somewhere :)
|
Douglas Adams uses the exact same reasoning while arguing that somewhere in the universe there's a planet whose inhabitors are living madrasses, which basically get hunted down, slaughtered and sold to people in the rest of the universe. :)
About the "head"-aspect, consider this: If the universe really is infinite and thus leaves a probability of 100% of something happening somewhere in the universe, what happens to that probability when the universe expands (which apparently it does)? |
|
|
| goldenarmZ |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
About the "head"-aspect, consider this: If the universe really is infinite and thus leaves a probability of 100% of something happening somewhere in the universe, what happens to that probability when the universe expands (which apparently it does)? |
the universe is already infinitely big, yet it is expanding all the time... now that IS a head!!! |
|
|
| Nastra Azzurro |
If u can see the end of the universe where it is expanding u see the beginning of time (HUH)
I have a theory
The universe is a rond bal ever expanding and the shrinking again...
Well i think that every atom is a universe we are in some other universes atom...and every atom in our world is a new universe and so on... there for there is a vicious cycle of BALLABNAKALBALBALBALBALBA Bollox....
well Like in MEn in Black Weird Beings are playing with our Galaxys like marbles LOL
I had a nice theory about life invloving Technics Ill tell u lot someday
dont feel like typing ne more now
Lata!!!!!1 |
|
|
| Renegade |
Nastra, you asked the question "why" an awful lot in that post. Well, I can make life a lot easier for you right now: never ask "why", only "how". The question "how" is simply an investigation into what's happening, where as the question "why" is exactly the same only it implies (often without foundation) the intentional, directed or conscious origin of an event. We can never know "why" (because there usually isn't a legitimate answer to the question "why" -- as there may not be any directed purpose behind an event) only the "how". (If you can answer a question that begins with the word "why" it's usually only because the word "why" is wrongly used in place of the word "how".) Better yet, just ask the question "what".
| quote: | | There's no such things as molecules...everything is atoms. |
Actually, all matter is quarks (red, yellow, blue, up, down and strange). :D
| quote: | | Each of these molecules are combinations of different atoms, some of which came into existence fairly late in the history of the universe (the part starting with the big bang). Now considering that the average density of mass in the entire universe is less than what we can achieve in vacum-chambers on earth, you'll realise that the probability that these exact kinds of atoms met up as to form the first cell is very unlikely (we're talking the odds of you winning the lottery every week for the rest of your life or something). |
Yeah interesting point, but I don't think it quite works like that. You've got to understand and appreciate just how much matter there is in the universe. When the universe was about 300,000 years old, it was cool enough to allow the formation of molecules. Now you've got to understand firstly that there is a hell of a lot of matter condensed into a relatively tiny space: basically 100% of the universes matter compressed into a miniscule 0.002% of the area (assuming a constant rate of expansion). That, coupled with the fact that it is the natural tendancy for matter to clump together in large groups, it should come as little suprise that galaxies, then solar systems, then planets, then living cells came into existence (yes, in that order). Looking deep into space, we knew that fully formed galaxies (i.e. with alight stars and definable structure) had already formed some 10-12 billion years ago, just a couple of billion years after the big bang.
Also you mention the average density of the universe being incredibly low: this is perfectly understandable and explicable - matter, as I said forms in clumps (i.e. it is inclined to attract other matter) which travel together through space in very, very large numbers (our galaxy is part of a super-cluster of galaxies containing dozens of similar bodies). This large degree of "clumping" ensures that even though the density of the universe is overall very low, it is due to the fact that huge amounts of space exist between these galaxy clusters, but the fact that these pockets of clumped matter do exist, ensures that the density in some places of the universe is enough to allow complex, large bodies of matter to accumulate.
And on the odds of the first living cells forming? Well, we know that amino acids (the fundamental building blocks on DNA and thus life) could have very easily been created -- primarily from sugar particles -- on early Earth, as they have formed in laboratory experiments replicating these same conditions.
So let's look at the numbers quickly. Assume that one in four stars has a planetary system (a gross underestimate, but it'll do for the sake of this argument). Assume then, that of these planetary systems, one in a hundered contain a planet in a suitbale position to be able to sustain life (right distance from the sun, right size, etc.). Then, of these hundered, assume that one in a hundered again have adequate conditions to allow the formation of amino acids (which, as I said before, have been created in laboratory conditions, so this is probably a gross overestimate too). Then, of these hundered, assume that only one in a thousand allow the exact perfect conditions to create life (i.e. self replicating cells, perhaps forming more complex animals). Then, of these planets that sustain life, assume that one in 1,000 again allow for the evolution of intelligent life. Multiply all those averages out and you get the number one in 40,000,000,000. One star in 40 billion is capable of sustaining intelligent life, according to these. That may seem like overwhelming odds to overcome, but keep in mind that there 3-4 times that many stars in this galaxy alone, and god knows how many galaxies there are -- estimates range anywhere from 10 million to 10 billion. Now there's not 100 billion stars in every galaxy, but if we take another conservative estimate and assume that the average number of stars in any given galaxy is 5 billion, this means that according to my (fairly conservative) odds, we should expect that there be anywhere from 1.25 million stars supporting inelligent life to 1.25 billion. Though I'd guess that the eariler number is more accurate, those are still pretty high figures. One million, two hundred and fifty thousand civilisations: we just happen to be one of them.
Now the size of space means we probably won't be able to meet any of these aliens, but still, mathematically, the odds of our existence isn't all that bad - especially when we encorporate the anthropic principle.
Basically, this theory states that the sole reason that the universe appears finely tuned towards out existence is because if it were any different, we would not be here to observe that we weren't here....if you get my drift. We see the universe the way it is only because we exist: we can only measure occurances, not non-occurances. So, for instance, let us assume that the odds of the universe existing with the configuration it has today (i.e. allowing for our existence) are one in 250 billion. That is, that there are 250 billion possible ways that the universe could have been configured initially, yet only one of those allows for the development of human life.
Some would say, that because the odds are so small, that this is evidence of a divine creator. But this is the easy way out. The fact is, there were 249,999,999,999 non-occurences. Now we can't measure these, because they didn't happen. Thus, they are quite useless as a mathematical tool, but still serve a useful hypothetical purpose. But just think, if the universe had ended up in one of those 249,999,999,999 other configurations, there would probably be some intelligent animal standing on his wierd planet saying: "of all the 250 billion possible occurances, isn't it amazing that this is the one! There's only one explanation - a god must have put us here!". But the fact is, his reality never occurred, and he doesn't know that it hasn't occurred. The only beings that can possibly question the universe that they live in ones that exist, so, by definition, they must be living in the universe perfectly suited to them (or, in actual fact, they just happen to be perfectly suited to the universe).
Think of it like a man playing golf: he tees off, hits the ball 150 yards down the fairway, and when it lands he goes and chases it. When he finds his ball he gasps and exclaims: "Oh my god! Of all the blades of grass on this golf-course it just happened to land on that one! The odds are millions to one! It must be a miracle!". We, of course, know that this is silly seeing as the ball had to land somewhere, yet try explaining it to the blade of grass who is struggling to understand why the ball should have landed on him instead of the millions of others. We, in case you haven't worked it out, are the one blade of grass that had the freak occurance of the ball landing on it, in a sea of non-occurances. The impartial observer, however, understands that the ball had to land somewhere, so the fact that it landed on that blade of grass as opposed to any other is quite unremarkable. But it's still something that the blade of grass struggles to understand, and that's where we stand right now.
Of course, this entire argument assume that there is only one universe (ours) and it is finite - that is, it has a beginning and an end. If there are 250 billion universes or the universe is infinite (that is that it keeps on expanding and contracting with a new configuration each time, for all eternity) then the chances of humans existing become exponentially more probable - possibly even more probable than not.
, look at the time, I've gone way too far yet again. Just quickly, I reccomend that you all pick up "A Brief History of Time" by Steven Hawking. It explains all this sort of stuff, really interesting.
Anyway, I hope you found this all very informative, I'll probably be back here in a day or two to post another long, slightly pointless message. Until then...... :) |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | | About the "head"-aspect, consider this: If the universe really is infinite and thus leaves a probability of 100% of something happening somewhere in the universe, what happens to that probability when the universe expands (which apparently it does)? |
Yeah, this is the problem that a lot of astro-physisists have with infinities. If the universe is infinite, then the probability of anything happening is effectively 100%. So, goes the argument, the probability of the exact opposite of anything happening is also 100%. Thus, some people say, if the universe is infinite, then the odds of two things happening that obviously contradict each other are both 100% - a mathematical impossibility.
But you've got to remember that if you specify a time or location of something happening, then infinity doesn't really matter, because you're making the scope of any occurance finite. Thus, if the universe is infinite, I could say with 100% certainty that Middlesbrough will win the Premiership. There is no debating this, but if I were to specify a time and a place then there is no problem, no contradiction. So, if I were to say that Middlesbrough were going to win the Premiership next season we are dealing with a finite time-frame so the odds of that occurance become (significantly :p ) less than 100%.
So, I guess what I'm saying is, is that while something can be infinite overall, we can still measure it within a finite time-frame (by declaring a specific occurance (or occurances) within a 4 dimensional framework). |
|
|
| goldenarmZ |
| ouch.... renegade.... you broke my head... :) |
|
|
| Metabeing |
Yevat,
You got the right idea but youre looking at it the wrong way. Instead of just seeing ewverything as a pile of molecules and being worthless you have to see it as beauty. Everything is beautiful because of how infinately complex it is yet simple at the same time.
How can you not be in awe of how glorious everything is. Even though everything is made up of the same tiny particles they form some beautiful unique item. When I see, say a blade of grass i marvel at how even though its only a million microscopic things it forms a living thing. And i see everything like that...drops of water, clouds, a grain of salt, whatever.
Its a great way to go through life.
Hope this helps
Meta |
|
|
| Metabeing |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Yeah, this is the problem that a lot of astro-physisists have with infinities. If the universe is infinite, then the probability of anything happening is effectively 100%. So, goes the argument, the probability of the exact opposite of anything happening is also 100%. Thus, some people say, if the universe is infinite, then the odds of two things happening that obviously contradict each other are both 100% - a mathematical impossibility.
But you've got to remember that if you specify a time or location of something happening, then infinity doesn't really matter, because you're making the scope of any occurance finite. Thus, if the universe is infinite, I could say with 100% certainty that Middlesbrough will win the Premiership. There is no debating this, but if I were to specify a time and a place then there is no problem, no contradiction. So, if I were to say that Middlesbrough were going to win the Premiership next season we are dealing with a finite time-frame so the odds of that occurance become (significantly :p ) less than 100%.
So, I guess what I'm saying is, is that while something can be infinite overall, we can still measure it within a finite time-frame (by declaring a specific occurance (or occurances) within a 4 dimensional framework). |
With that arguement you are getting into the whole countably infinite vs uncountably infinite debate. Anyone that has taken a discreete mathmatics course knows what im talking about...they are not fun.
Basically if something can be mapped onto the set of natural numbers and is infinate it is countably infinate, say like the number of days that have the number 3 in them. Something is uncountalbly infinite if i cannot be mappped to the natural numbers, say a list of all numbers between 3.45 and 3.46.
Man school doesnt start back up for 3 weeks and im already talking about this...
Meta |
|
|
|
|
