Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I dont see how the "we are the only ones with a moral dimension" argument has any sway one or the other as to the existence of life. And to be frank, I am not convinced that we are the only species with a sense of moral dimension. I do know this, we are about the only species that kills for the sport, will kill for no reason, and will kill in the name of something we have never seen and have no proof of existence.
The thing that strikes me in these sorts of discussions is that the people peddling them, be they christian, muslim, atheist, whatever, is that they always "know" that they are right, and that the moral high ground belongs to them. You know something....it doesnt. The best that we can do when it comes to questions of morals, is to arrive at some mutually acceptable set of standards and behaviours and then judge according to those standards. All those discussions about freedom of speech, human rights, the right to self determination, the rule of law, respect for others and their beliefs, and above all, tolerance are things that float into my mind when I think of morals. Amongst that general concept is the right to paractice ones religious beliefs without fear.
But none of this discussion has any place in a discussion about the possibility of alien life. We can not know if such ELFs have a sense of morals or not, heck, we cant even know if there is intelligent life out there. If we start bringing some alleged moral or religious code into the debate, then we have taken this enormous step backwards, to somewhere equivalent to the Inquisition. We should simply look at the facts, or even the potential facts, based on verifiable source material, and avoid making judgements based merely on beliefs. Basing decisions on beliefs rather than facts, or observations, reduces our cognition to the level of voodoo basically
Great post Butters. With regard to interstellar travel, Einsteins theories remain solid, however I am troubled by the fact that light, a supposedly massless phenomena, cannot have all of its properties explained, unless it also has mass. if it has mass, then relativity is out the window. if relativity is out the window, then velocities above the speed of light may be possible, and perhaps something different happens to mass time and energy than was predicted in the Special relativity theories????? If that is a true statement, then perhaps the little green men in flying saucers is plausible??????
Parsifal - The three concepts to dig into include Quantum Electrodynamics, the Quantum Field Theory and the duality of wave and particle whe describing the behavior of all matter and energy.
They bring the 'particle vs wave' discussion from Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics into solid theory and behavior predictibility for all matter AND energy from Boson/meson, through electron/positron and photon to black holes.
General relativity brought the properties of light into describable (and predictible) behavior in space-time context. Quantume FIELD Theory combined with Shroedinger and Hesinenburg ad Dirac's contributions led to Quantum Electrodynamics.. and so on.
The math is heady 'stuff' - I'm just an Engineer that stopped at Calculus of Variations and Chaos Theory but I can wade through the math - but struggle with synthesizing all the implications.
If a Physics pro dabbling in Quantum Electrodynamics and the extension of Quantum Field discussions down to sub atomic energy states, suddenly dives into this discussion, he will quickly slip past my comfort zoe
I didn't read through these discussions but I recall my philosophy classes and when we came to cosmology and the change that life also exists on other planets, and given that there is an innate mechanism towards more complex lifeforms, it seemed that there are two possibilities:
- either we are a change of one in a billion (or more) , so we're totally alone!
- either there will be an evolutionary mechanism leading to intelligent lifeforms on all planets capable of supporting those lifeforms. And given that there are unnumerable planets out there ... there may be a whole lot of life out there. And it will be (or will become) intelligent!
Kris
can you give some examples?Simplification of anatomy is as common as complexification in nature. We just don't tend to notice it as much unless we actively look for it.
It's no great leap of imagination to consider life forms using intra-system transport mechanisms other than oxygen/blood, it's a little more difficult to imagine life thriving in a vacuum. Just about every form of life I can think of conducts some form of cyclic exchange from inside the system to outside the system; it's difficult to know what would be getting exchanged in a vacuum.I...why do we always assume that life on other planets must be carbon-based and breathe oxygen? Why couldn't another species live on a methane-atmosphere planet? Or in a vacuum?
I remember there being life on earth in what was always considered to be uninhabitable for life. Apparently there are life forms near highly toxic volcano wells and in water lakes totally sealed off by ice for centuries.
So yeah, I also doubt it has to be life as we know it.
Kris
Awesome stuff Butters! I never saw it that way. Can you elaborate a bit?
for instance can you give some examples?
Kris
I disagree.
Life just doesn't stop evolving just because we think it has reached it's peak in evolution.
Amazing stuff! Whenever I get the chance I'm going to get me that book! Thanks for a fascinating post Butters, appreciate it !Thanks. I'll offer a few examples, but if you're really interested in exploring the concept, SJ Gould's, "Full House", is your best resource.
Many types of parasites have abandoned complex physiology in their adaption to a parasitic life-style, as have viruses. The argument that viruses are not truly 'alive is dependent on the premise that metabolism is the defining attribute of life. However, there are a number of multicellular organisms that can also suspend metabolic activity for varying lengths of time. Tardigrades (also known as 'water bears') are the classic example of this phenomena. Numerous vertebrates also have reduced complexity in comparison to their ancestors-flightless birds for one example, blind cavefish and salamanders for another. In certain deep-sea anglerfish, the males are basically gonads with a nose and fins. once they locate a female, they latch on near her vent and in a short time becomes irreversibly integrated into her circulatory system. Over time,the male atrophies to the point that he is no more than a sac containing the gonads...
The real stake in the heart of the premise that evolution is a teleological process, is not just the fact that the overwhelming majority of organism remain stubbornly unicellular, but the utter lack of an evidentially-supported causal mechanism for'progress' in evolution.The mutations that provide the grist for the mill of natural selection are the randomizing force in evolution. If there was an intrinsic drive towards 'improvement', you would expect that most mutations would be beneficial, whereas the opposite is actually the case.
Nature doesn't care a whit that you're loaded with fancy gizmos -all that matters is that you can handle the challenges in your immediate environment. If anything, Nature shows a bias for simplicity. Complicated organisms, much like our more complex machines, have just that much more to go wrong. A bacteria is much more durable than you are. Which only adds emphasis to Biker Babe's comment about the 'peak in evolution'. That 'peak' exists only as a parochial conceit.
JL