Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
An argument for creationism from an atheist
#51

An argument for creationism from an atheist
(07-29-2021, 06:13 AM)Cubeology Wrote: So what happens if we survive through the next couple millennia and spread out through the stars and become less vulnerable to extinction. We might continue on for a long time developing a better understanding of the universe, developing greater technologies, and probably evolving ourselves by biological and technological means into something we would not consider to even be human anymore. What if our present 10,000-year-old civilization goes on for billions of years. What will we become and what will be able to do? It is simply unimaginable. But given all that time it can be presumed that we will be able to duplicate anything in nature artificially, including the big bang. As our galaxy dies of old age and with progress toward the heat death of the universe we would be highly motivated to do so. 

With this in mind, the possibility that our own universe started this way must be considered. Unfortunately, this is currently an untestable hypothesis as we are completely unable to explore even nearby space much less the vastness of the universe for any ancient civilizations responsible. Heck, much of the universe is outside the observable and impossible by our understanding to even see it. The probability is impossible to calculate but it is a possibility that requires nothing supernatural. It is possible that nature spawns enough new universes on its own and that a billion-year-old civilization would be able to navigate them making artificial universes entirely unnecessary. 

While these beings would appear godlike I doubt any of them would be even aware of our insignificant existence in the vastness of space and if they are I doubt we warrant any attention from them at all. They certainly aren't dictating books to tell us who we can have sex with and the other silly stuff. So while I do propose a credible creation story I doubt any of the many religions would find it very acceptable.

I think we make the next Homo [whatever] in 200 years or so.  They will figure a way to up load us to spacetime just to find out we are there already.

IMO, The infinite regress problem is resolved if we just assume this universe is/was the first.  It doesn't really matter what came before us if our belief isn't based on it. In fact, I have no idea why people would base (hinge) a belief on "it had to have something start it".   Its unknown today and will be for a long time, if ever, for our type of animal.
The following 1 user Likes Scoop's post:
  • Alan V
Reply
#52

An argument for creationism from an atheist
(07-30-2021, 04:13 AM)vulcanlogician Wrote:
(07-30-2021, 02:16 AM)Peebothuhlu Wrote: Said vehicles should have been able to achieve upto .33% the speed of light. (Note. Look up "Project Valkyrie" for an even faster antimatter powered rocket. Smile        )

So, you launch it and roughly 150 odd years later you get information back. Look at how long people waited patiently for the Pluto Express to get out that distance.

So, with enough time spent pretty much any distance can be coevered at a low light speed crawl.

That leads into the limiters of course. Maybe societys simply don't stablily last over those scales? Maybe the distance between 'habitable' spots is so vast that it's thousands of years at low 'C' speeds between watering holes?
The likelihood of finding a habitable planet is astronomical. But that doesn't mean we can't set up a Dyson swarm around another star. Our star won't last forever.

We could make it to Wolf 359 in around 25 years. Actually a bit longer, as that assumes 1/3 the speed of light the whole way. The vessel will take quite a bit of time to accelerate to that speed. Additionally, it will need to flip around and begin decelerating long before it arrives.

We'd want to send out an unmanned vessel first, though. Our "small city" of travellers will want to have a few generations of provisions once they get there.

Another concern is dust particles. At very high speeds a single particle of dust will strike the hull with the force of many atomic bombs. Luckily, a "brute force" vessel ought to be able to withstand such a shock. The problem is that such a strike will send the ship turning end over end and careening off in the wrong direction. The rockets that adjust the vessel's trajectory would take quite some time to set things right. Just a single dust particle could end up adding twenty years to the journey. Aside from that, the passengers inside the ship will likely be flattened against the wall, unless secured when the ship strikes the dust particle.

So, plenty of challenges when crossing interstellar distances.

A ship massing in at millions of tonns won't necessarily start tumbling when and if the 'Wipple' shield takes a hit. Wink

Why flip and decelerate half way? Use the oncomming gravity wells to bleed off speed. Sure, you might take longer moving through the target solar system but at least you get a better look at more of the realestate. Smile


Atomic Rockets the web site is an interesting compilation of various space based things. Thumbs Up 

Cheers.

Not at work.
The following 1 user Likes Peebothuhlu's post:
  • Dānu
Reply
#53

An argument for creationism from an atheist
(08-01-2021, 07:45 PM)Inkubus Wrote:
(08-01-2021, 05:45 PM)Cubeology Wrote: ...All I am trying to say is that my inexperience with the conversation among atheists and between them and deists may leave me not fully aware of the common usage of certain terms. All that aside, the context with which I used the word should have been clear and no one could reasonably conclude that my usage had anything to do with the bibilical account.

Fine, now using as fewer words as possible do you believe the universe was created Ex nihilo by some sort of entity or has it always existed.

The short answer is that there is insufficient information to form a conclusion. But if you take a look at your question you gave me a false dichotomy.

The bubble of space-time we call the universe appears not to have always existed based upon the big bang theory. But I find the idea of something from nothing to be so problematic that I believe that the energy that expanded in the big bang came from somewhere and that there has always been something. 

While I can entertain the possibility of advanced beings with vast powers as in my OP, they would be the result of natural processes, not the other way around. 

I find the idea that any being or god preexisting everything else such a preposterous notion that it doesn't merit consideration even if it could be shown that there was a beginning.
The following 1 user Likes Cubeology's post:
  • Alan V
Reply
#54

An argument for creationism from an atheist
(08-01-2021, 09:08 PM)Scoop Wrote: I think we make the next Homo [whatever] in 200 years or so.  They will figure a way to up load us to spacetime just to find out we are there already.

I think it will take some time for people to accept genetic engineering of ourselves to be considered ethical. Perhaps incorporating technology into our bodies and brains will happen sooner. But once we start on this path we will rapidly evolve into something very different incorporating the best of our genetic potential, nanotechnology, and artificial intelligence.
Reply
#55

An argument for creationism from an atheist
(08-01-2021, 05:45 PM)Cubeology Wrote: You seem to have cut off whatever quote you were giving for a definition, but I googled it, and the definition does in fact include the word "divine" and a reference to the biblical account.

Well, the dictionary lays out common usage. That doesn't mean it lays out facts. Dictionaries are about defining words, not defining reality itself.

(08-01-2021, 05:45 PM)Cubeology Wrote: The divine part doesn't really cause problems because beings capable of creating universes would be considered gods compared to us and therefore could be divine. The definition also says, "as in the biblical account" but not specifically the biblical account. So while my use of the word stretches the definition to the widest interpretation it is not technically incorrect by the specific definition provided by Google. 

It's a largely American audience here. Ignore that angle at risk of, well, this misunderstanding.

(08-01-2021, 05:45 PM)Cubeology Wrote: [...] or trigger anyone.

I don't see anyone here triggered; do you?

Disagreement doesn't mean someone is triggered. It's interesting you choose to frame it that way, though.
Freedom isn't free.
The following 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • GenesisNemesis
Reply
#56

An argument for creationism from an atheist
(08-02-2021, 02:48 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:
(08-01-2021, 05:45 PM)Cubeology Wrote: You seem to have cut off whatever quote you were giving for a definition, but I googled it, and the definition does in fact include the word "divine" and a reference to the biblical account.

Well, the dictionary lays out common usage. That doesn't mean it lays out facts. Dictionaries are about defining words, not defining reality itself.

(08-01-2021, 05:45 PM)Cubeology Wrote: The divine part doesn't really cause problems because beings capable of creating universes would be considered gods compared to us and therefore could be divine. The definition also says, "as in the biblical account" but not specifically the biblical account. So while my use of the word stretches the definition to the widest interpretation it is not technically incorrect by the specific definition provided by Google. 

It's a largely American audience here. Ignore that angle at risk of, well, this misunderstanding.

(08-01-2021, 05:45 PM)Cubeology Wrote: [...] or trigger anyone.

I don't see anyone here triggered; do you?

Disagreement doesn't mean someone is triggered. It's interesting you choose to frame it that way, though.

"Triggered" is the perfect word.  Anyone reading the OP title and content would have to be almost willfully dumb to not understand the context of "creationism" was in no way connected to its religious dictionary meaning ("from an atheist" was also kinda a giant hint).  But it is largely an American audience, so maybe yes it is best to speak down to the lowest common denominator and avoid upsetting us with scary religious words.
Reply
#57

An argument for creationism from an atheist
jerry mcmasters Wrote: "Triggered" is the perfect word.  Anyone reading the OP title and content would have to be almost willfully dumb to not understand the context of "creationism" was in no way connected to its religious dictionary meaning ("from an atheist" was also kinda a giant hint).  But it is largely an American audience, so maybe yes it is best to speak down to the lowest common denominator and avoid upsetting us with scary religious words.

What?
Reply
#58

An argument for creationism from an atheist
(08-02-2021, 03:36 AM)Inkubus Wrote:
jerry mcmasters Wrote: "Triggered" is the perfect word.  Anyone reading the OP title and content would have to be almost willfully dumb to not understand the context of "creationism" was in no way connected to its religious dictionary meaning ("from an atheist" was also kinda a giant hint).  But it is largely an American audience, so maybe yes it is best to speak down to the lowest common denominator and avoid upsetting us with scary religious words.

What?

If the shoe fits, wear it.
Reply
#59

An argument for creationism from an atheist
(08-01-2021, 06:47 AM)Cubeology Wrote:
(07-31-2021, 09:18 PM)trdsf Wrote:
(07-31-2021, 01:39 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Yeah, I hadn't even considered the risks of collision and whatnot, but that stands to reason: being closer to the center of gravity means incoming selection pressures.

Just the radiation alone seems like a big strike, to me.

What surprised me was the idea that being too far from the core makes life less likely -- but then, out there the supernovae are too far apart for the heavy elements they create to concentrate easily.  You have to be just close enough for mild and infrequent interstellar mayhem: too close and it's too crazy with radiation, collisions and explosions, and too far out and it's too tame to build anything.

The idea of a galactic goldilocks zone is probably true, limiting the number of candidate stellar systems for life. While life started on Earth almost immediately, it took billions of years to develop into multicellular life and this is also probably a huge hurdle for life. I also think technological civilizations are probably really rare. Most think we developed tech because we were special and had special abilities but in truth, it was because we were bad at everything else. Technology building was an adaptive trait because we were comparatively feeble and ill-suited for our environment. There are many creatures that have impressive brain development but are so well suited for their environment that primitive technologies do not confer any immediate survival advantage. So beings that are strong enough to survive but weak enough that primitive technology is a necessary adaption are probably few and far between. Also in any region of space one civilization is going to arise first and going to completely dominate any later lesser civilizations. So as far as the Fermi paradox goes, we are either first and there isn't anyone else around. Or there is one dominant culture and they have just chosen not to reveal themselves to us for unknown motivations. It's not likely to be like most sci-fi where there are tons of equal cultures running around all over the place. So not really much of a paradox at all.
Pretty much.  The Fermi Paradox is only a paradox in a universe that's infinite in time, and this universe is not.

Based on how long it took for complex life to develop after simple life arose, the perspective that life is common and complex life is not is perfectly reasonable, taking the principle of mediocrity into account.  It could be wrong, but we're going to need to hear something—a lot of somethings—in the radio spectrum to invalidate that position.

If I had to make a guess, I would say that there are four or five technological civilizations in our galaxy, including us.  On average, that implies the nearest is thousands of light-years away at a minimum.
"Aliens?  Us?  Is this one of your Earth jokes?"  -- Kro-Bar, The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra
The following 2 users Like trdsf's post:
  • Alan V, Inkubus
Reply
#60

An argument for creationism from an atheist
This kind of hostile discourse wasn't what I was looking for when I came to this forum or when I posted what I thought would be a fun topic. All because I used a word that triggered someone. Yes, I stand by my choice of words, it is what it is. I patiently took the time to clarify what I meant more than once even though I was more than clear in my OP. Maybe I should have said creation instead of creationism but somehow I don't think that would have made any difference. I intentionally phrased my topic as creation because of the irony in the idea that creation might be possible while those bible people are still completely wrong. I thought people would be smart enough to understand that but I was clearly wrong. Instead, we ended up with an unproductive back and forth over something that has nothing to do with the topic. I'm done participating in this side debate that started because somewhat was upset with how I used a word and will confine myself to more civil discussions relating to the OP.
The following 2 users Like Cubeology's post:
  • Alan V, jerry mcmasters
Reply
#61

An argument for creationism from an atheist
(08-02-2021, 05:24 AM)trdsf Wrote:
(08-01-2021, 06:47 AM)Cubeology Wrote:
(07-31-2021, 09:18 PM)trdsf Wrote: What surprised me was the idea that being too far from the core makes life less likely -- but then, out there the supernovae are too far apart for the heavy elements they create to concentrate easily.  You have to be just close enough for mild and infrequent interstellar mayhem: too close and it's too crazy with radiation, collisions and explosions, and too far out and it's too tame to build anything.

The idea of a galactic goldilocks zone is probably true, limiting the number of candidate stellar systems for life. While life started on Earth almost immediately, it took billions of years to develop into multicellular life and this is also probably a huge hurdle for life. I also think technological civilizations are probably really rare. Most think we developed tech because we were special and had special abilities but in truth, it was because we were bad at everything else. Technology building was an adaptive trait because we were comparatively feeble and ill-suited for our environment. There are many creatures that have impressive brain development but are so well suited for their environment that primitive technologies do not confer any immediate survival advantage. So beings that are strong enough to survive but weak enough that primitive technology is a necessary adaption are probably few and far between. Also in any region of space one civilization is going to arise first and going to completely dominate any later lesser civilizations. So as far as the Fermi paradox goes, we are either first and there isn't anyone else around. Or there is one dominant culture and they have just chosen not to reveal themselves to us for unknown motivations. It's not likely to be like most sci-fi where there are tons of equal cultures running around all over the place. So not really much of a paradox at all.
Pretty much.  The Fermi Paradox is only a paradox in a universe that's infinite in time, and this universe is not.

Based on how long it took for complex life to develop after simple life arose, the perspective that life is common and complex life is not is perfectly reasonable, taking the principle of mediocrity into account.  It could be wrong, but we're going to need to hear something—a lot of somethings—in the radio spectrum to invalidate that position.

If I had to make a guess, I would say that there are four or five technological civilizations in our galaxy, including us.  On average, that implies the nearest is thousands of light-years away at a minimum.

Or one of the other civilizations could start constructing a 'Mega structure' around their sun which might show up to us or their neighbors.

One of the reason's "Tabby's star" was being watched with such intent when its light dimmed significantly. Sadly... no nearby civilizations are building a giant Dyson Sphere around their star. Sad

Cheers.

Not at work.
Reply
#62

An argument for creationism from an atheist
(08-02-2021, 05:24 AM)trdsf Wrote:
(08-01-2021, 06:47 AM)Cubeology Wrote:
(07-31-2021, 09:18 PM)trdsf Wrote: What surprised me was the idea that being too far from the core makes life less likely -- but then, out there the supernovae are too far apart for the heavy elements they create to concentrate easily.  You have to be just close enough for mild and infrequent interstellar mayhem: too close and it's too crazy with radiation, collisions and explosions, and too far out and it's too tame to build anything.

The idea of a galactic goldilocks zone is probably true, limiting the number of candidate stellar systems for life. While life started on Earth almost immediately, it took billions of years to develop into multicellular life and this is also probably a huge hurdle for life. I also think technological civilizations are probably really rare. Most think we developed tech because we were special and had special abilities but in truth, it was because we were bad at everything else. Technology building was an adaptive trait because we were comparatively feeble and ill-suited for our environment. There are many creatures that have impressive brain development but are so well suited for their environment that primitive technologies do not confer any immediate survival advantage. So beings that are strong enough to survive but weak enough that primitive technology is a necessary adaption are probably few and far between. Also in any region of space one civilization is going to arise first and going to completely dominate any later lesser civilizations. So as far as the Fermi paradox goes, we are either first and there isn't anyone else around. Or there is one dominant culture and they have just chosen not to reveal themselves to us for unknown motivations. It's not likely to be like most sci-fi where there are tons of equal cultures running around all over the place. So not really much of a paradox at all.
Pretty much.  The Fermi Paradox is only a paradox in a universe that's infinite in time, and this universe is not.

Based on how long it took for complex life to develop after simple life arose, the perspective that life is common and complex life is not is perfectly reasonable, taking the principle of mediocrity into account.  It could be wrong, but we're going to need to hear something—a lot of somethings—in the radio spectrum to invalidate that position.

If I had to make a guess, I would say that there are four or five technological civilizations in our galaxy, including us.  On average, that implies the nearest is thousands of light-years away at a minimum.

I would probably say that the number of tech civs present at any given time is probably far less than your number based on the fact that many of them will go extinct for one reason or another. Even if hundreds of them in this galaxy have arisen over the course of the last billion years or so the chance of any of them existing concurrently with us is vanishingly small. So the question is how many survive the discovery of atomic power or even the future discovery of controlling antimatter in any quantity. Just think how fast one person with an antimatter bomb could destroy everything. There are so many things that could end a high-tech civilization before it becomes starfaring. So the real question is how many civs survive to be starfaring and become mostly but not completely immune to sudden extinction. There is no way to calculate but the number could be extremely small and we could even have the galaxy to ourselves.
Reply
#63

An argument for creationism from an atheist
(08-02-2021, 06:35 AM)Peebothuhlu Wrote:
(08-02-2021, 05:24 AM)trdsf Wrote:
(08-01-2021, 06:47 AM)Cubeology Wrote: The idea of a galactic goldilocks zone is probably true, limiting the number of candidate stellar systems for life. While life started on Earth almost immediately, it took billions of years to develop into multicellular life and this is also probably a huge hurdle for life. I also think technological civilizations are probably really rare. Most think we developed tech because we were special and had special abilities but in truth, it was because we were bad at everything else. Technology building was an adaptive trait because we were comparatively feeble and ill-suited for our environment. There are many creatures that have impressive brain development but are so well suited for their environment that primitive technologies do not confer any immediate survival advantage. So beings that are strong enough to survive but weak enough that primitive technology is a necessary adaption are probably few and far between. Also in any region of space one civilization is going to arise first and going to completely dominate any later lesser civilizations. So as far as the Fermi paradox goes, we are either first and there isn't anyone else around. Or there is one dominant culture and they have just chosen not to reveal themselves to us for unknown motivations. It's not likely to be like most sci-fi where there are tons of equal cultures running around all over the place. So not really much of a paradox at all.
Pretty much.  The Fermi Paradox is only a paradox in a universe that's infinite in time, and this universe is not.

Based on how long it took for complex life to develop after simple life arose, the perspective that life is common and complex life is not is perfectly reasonable, taking the principle of mediocrity into account.  It could be wrong, but we're going to need to hear something—a lot of somethings—in the radio spectrum to invalidate that position.

If I had to make a guess, I would say that there are four or five technological civilizations in our galaxy, including us.  On average, that implies the nearest is thousands of light-years away at a minimum.

Or one of the other civilizations could start constructing a 'Mega structure' around their sun which might show up to us or their neighbors.

One of the reason's "Tabby's star" was being watched with such intent when its light dimmed significantly. Sadly... no nearby civilizations are building a giant Dyson Sphere around their star. Sad

Cheers.

Not at work.

But we would have to catch them in the act of constructing it. If there was a Dyson sphere around any but the most nearby stars we wouldn't be able to detect it. Even a Dyson swarm probably would be undetectable at any distance. I'm not even sure if such a structure is even feasible and a civilization capable of considering it might just choose to move existing planets and moons into orbits in the habitable zone. We can barely even detect exoplanets currently and don't know anything about them beyond their mass and position. Perhaps in the future, we will develop better ways to see into the cosmos. Perhaps a giant telescope on the far side of the moon.
Reply
#64

An argument for creationism from an atheist
(08-02-2021, 05:41 AM)Cubeology Wrote: This kind of hostile discourse wasn't what I was looking for when I came to this forum or when I posted what I thought would be a fun topic. 

Most discussions have some conflict or other, and sometimes several.  Certain people seem to enjoy conflict.  Others are persnickety.

I tend to be persnickety.   Talkinghead
Reply
#65

An argument for creationism from an atheist
(08-02-2021, 03:32 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: "Triggered" is the perfect word.  Anyone reading the OP title and content would have to be almost willfully dumb to not understand the context of "creationism" was in no way connected to its religious dictionary meaning ("from an atheist" was also kinda a giant hint).  But it is largely an American audience, so maybe yes it is best to speak down to the lowest common denominator and avoid upsetting us with scary religious words.

Yes, that fits with your view of people here, sure.
Freedom isn't free.
The following 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post:
  • Vera
Reply
#66

An argument for creationism from an atheist
(08-02-2021, 01:06 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Yes, that fits with your view of people here, sure.

And since we see others through the lens of who we are... Deadpan Coffee Drinker
“We drift down time, clutching at straws. But what good's a brick to a drowning man?” 
The following 1 user Likes Vera's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#67

An argument for creationism from an atheist
(08-02-2021, 07:12 AM)Cubeology Wrote:
(08-02-2021, 06:35 AM)Peebothuhlu Wrote:
(08-02-2021, 05:24 AM)trdsf Wrote: Pretty much.  The Fermi Paradox is only a paradox in a universe that's infinite in time, and this universe is not.

Based on how long it took for complex life to develop after simple life arose, the perspective that life is common and complex life is not is perfectly reasonable, taking the principle of mediocrity into account.  It could be wrong, but we're going to need to hear something—a lot of somethings—in the radio spectrum to invalidate that position.

If I had to make a guess, I would say that there are four or five technological civilizations in our galaxy, including us.  On average, that implies the nearest is thousands of light-years away at a minimum.

Or one of the other civilizations could start constructing a 'Mega structure' around their sun which might show up to us or their neighbors.

One of the reason's "Tabby's star" was being watched with such intent when its light dimmed significantly. Sadly... no nearby civilizations are building a giant Dyson Sphere around their star. Sad

Cheers.

Not at work.

But we would have to catch them in the act of constructing it. If there was a Dyson sphere around any but the most nearby stars we wouldn't be able to detect it. Even a Dyson swarm probably would be undetectable at any distance. I'm not even sure if such a structure is even feasible and a civilization capable of considering it might just choose to move existing planets and moons into orbits in the habitable zone. We can barely even detect exoplanets currently and don't know anything about them beyond their mass and position. Perhaps in the future, we will develop better ways to see into the cosmos. Perhaps a giant telescope on the far side of the moon.

That's why I mentoined "Tabby's Star".

If a civilization is able and capable and actually does build some 'Mega structure' around their star Astronomers will more than likely notice since that distant collection of sophonts is managing to do something that not even the largest of planets do. Visibly change the brightness of a stellar object.

Basically Mega structures are things that might boggle even E.E.Doc Smith's mind with their sheer size. Emperor Palpatine would be drooling.

And, as has been pointed out, anything interesting enough to be an 'Engine' or 'Power source'? Is also probably amazing good at being a weapon.

Thumbs Up 

Cheers.

Not at work.
Reply
#68

An argument for creationism from an atheist
(08-02-2021, 01:06 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Yes, that fits with your view of people here, sure.

It fits my view of you, and you've earned it.
Reply
#69

An argument for creationism from an atheist
(08-02-2021, 10:20 AM)Alan V Wrote:
(08-02-2021, 05:41 AM)Cubeology Wrote: This kind of hostile discourse wasn't what I was looking for when I came to this forum or when I posted what I thought would be a fun topic. 

Most discussions have some conflict or other, and sometimes several.  Certain people seem to enjoy conflict.  Others are persnickety.

I tend to be persnickety.   Talkinghead

I shouldn't have butted in.  But damn we get like one new member every six months and we have to line up and scold him for the dumbest thing.  I'll learn to keep my mouth shut one of these days. Thumbs Up Deadpan Coffee Drinker
The following 1 user Likes jerry mcmasters's post:
  • Alan V
Reply
#70

An argument for creationism from an atheist
(08-02-2021, 11:12 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:
(08-02-2021, 01:06 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Yes, that fits with your view of people here, sure.

It fits my view of you, and you've earned it.

I don't typically worry about the opinions of toddlers and will not make an exception for you.

There's your attention-fix for the day, so enjoy it.
Freedom isn't free.
Reply
#71

An argument for creationism from an atheist
(08-02-2021, 11:17 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: I shouldn't have butted in.  But damn we get like one new member every six months and we have to line up and scold him for the dumbest thing.  I'll learn to keep my mouth shut one of these days.

I think you were correct in this instance.
The following 1 user Likes Alan V's post:
  • jerry mcmasters
Reply
#72

An argument for creationism from an atheist
(08-02-2021, 06:53 AM)Cubeology Wrote:
(08-02-2021, 05:24 AM)trdsf Wrote:
(08-01-2021, 06:47 AM)Cubeology Wrote: The idea of a galactic goldilocks zone is probably true, limiting the number of candidate stellar systems for life. While life started on Earth almost immediately, it took billions of years to develop into multicellular life and this is also probably a huge hurdle for life. I also think technological civilizations are probably really rare. Most think we developed tech because we were special and had special abilities but in truth, it was because we were bad at everything else. Technology building was an adaptive trait because we were comparatively feeble and ill-suited for our environment. There are many creatures that have impressive brain development but are so well suited for their environment that primitive technologies do not confer any immediate survival advantage. So beings that are strong enough to survive but weak enough that primitive technology is a necessary adaption are probably few and far between. Also in any region of space one civilization is going to arise first and going to completely dominate any later lesser civilizations. So as far as the Fermi paradox goes, we are either first and there isn't anyone else around. Or there is one dominant culture and they have just chosen not to reveal themselves to us for unknown motivations. It's not likely to be like most sci-fi where there are tons of equal cultures running around all over the place. So not really much of a paradox at all.
Pretty much.  The Fermi Paradox is only a paradox in a universe that's infinite in time, and this universe is not.

Based on how long it took for complex life to develop after simple life arose, the perspective that life is common and complex life is not is perfectly reasonable, taking the principle of mediocrity into account.  It could be wrong, but we're going to need to hear something—a lot of somethings—in the radio spectrum to invalidate that position.

If I had to make a guess, I would say that there are four or five technological civilizations in our galaxy, including us.  On average, that implies the nearest is thousands of light-years away at a minimum.

I would probably say that the number of tech civs present at any given time is probably far less than your number based on the fact that many of them will go extinct for one reason or another. Even if hundreds of them in this galaxy have arisen over the course of the last billion years or so the chance of any of them existing concurrently with us is vanishingly small. So the question is how many survive the discovery of atomic power or even the future discovery of controlling antimatter in any quantity. Just think how fast one person with an antimatter bomb could destroy everything. There are so many things that could end a high-tech civilization before it becomes starfaring. So the real question is how many civs survive to be starfaring and become mostly but not completely immune to sudden extinction. There is no way to calculate but the number could be extremely small and we could even have the galaxy to ourselves.

Again, applying the principle of mediocrity, I assume that of however many civilizations there are, about half are doing a better job of managing any violent or self-destructive societal tendencies they may have than we're doing.  And a lot of that is probably driven by the kind of creature they evolved from -- pack hunters, foragers, scavengers, predators, whatever.

Also, I don't think there comes a time that interstellar travel ever becomes easy.  I doubt there's a shortcut around the speed of light, and so any interstellar trip is always going to be a massive undertaking -- and therefore uncommon, but not impossible.  A civilization would have to have pretty well tamed their own planetary system before moving to even the nearest star looks like a good idea, and interstellar exploration will be by robot and AI or near-AI for a very long time.  I strongly doubt there will ever come a time that some sentient can just hop in the saucer and zip off halfway across the galaxy with the same casualness as driving from Chicago to Cleveland.
"Aliens?  Us?  Is this one of your Earth jokes?"  -- Kro-Bar, The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra
The following 3 users Like trdsf's post:
  • Alan V, Inkubus, Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#73

An argument for creationism from an atheist
(08-02-2021, 06:35 AM)Peebothuhlu Wrote:
(08-02-2021, 05:24 AM)trdsf Wrote: Pretty much.  The Fermi Paradox is only a paradox in a universe that's infinite in time, and this universe is not.

Based on how long it took for complex life to develop after simple life arose, the perspective that life is common and complex life is not is perfectly reasonable, taking the principle of mediocrity into account.  It could be wrong, but we're going to need to hear something—a lot of somethings—in the radio spectrum to invalidate that position.

If I had to make a guess, I would say that there are four or five technological civilizations in our galaxy, including us.  On average, that implies the nearest is thousands of light-years away at a minimum.

Or one of the other civilizations could start constructing a 'Mega structure' around their sun which might show up to us or their neighbors.

One of the reason's "Tabby's star" was being watched with such intent when its light dimmed significantly. Sadly... no nearby civilizations are building a giant Dyson Sphere around their star. Sad
It's still worth watching Tabby's Star just because it's doing something weird and we'll learn something about stellar (or planetary disk) evolution from it.

I really recommend Isaac Arthur's videos on Kardashev civilizations, Dyson spheres, and extreme engineering.  Smile
"Aliens?  Us?  Is this one of your Earth jokes?"  -- Kro-Bar, The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra
The following 2 users Like trdsf's post:
  • Inkubus, Peebothuhlu
Reply
#74

An argument for creationism from an atheist
(08-03-2021, 07:54 PM)trdsf Wrote: It's still worth watching Tabby's Star just because it's doing something weird and we'll learn something about stellar (or planetary disk) evolution from it.

I really recommend Isaac Arthur's videos on Kardashev civilizations, Dyson spheres, and extreme engineering.  Smile

I agree, Tabby's Star is very interesting and the explanations on what is happening there are not completely satisfying. It is too far away for us to get a clear look with our current telescopes. 

I think I've seen some of those videos and read about megastructures from many sources and most talk about the end product without considering the difficulty in the process of constructing them. There is very little mass in the inner solar system so you would have to find a way to sweep up all the small objects in the Ort Cloud which is 2000 au to three or so light-years away from the sun. All this matter would have to be collected and moved to the inner solar system in a controlled way as to not endanger inhabited planets and space stations and not have it fall into the sun or end up in some unwanted orbit. Then it would have to be converted to a material that is strong enough for this construction using some sort of futuristic alchemy, a process for we don't even have a theory, and do it on a massive scale. Then and only then could we try to construct a Dyson swarm using some sort of nanotechnology and/or other automated construction and place the components in a stable orbit. However, this would require vast amounts of power for which we have no clue on how to produce. Antimatter probably isn't a solution because I think it will probably take as much power to produce as you get from the annihilation of it. So it will be a good way to concentrate a lot of power in a small space like a battery, but ultimately the power will have to come from somewhere else, probably the sun, so we will first have to construct massive solar collectors. Each of these steps will require technologies that we haven't even conceived of yet. I think we will have terraforming and interstellar colonies before megastructures as the required technology for those is already theoretically possible.
The following 1 user Likes Cubeology's post:
  • Alan V
Reply
#75

An argument for creationism from an atheist
(08-03-2021, 07:49 PM)trdsf Wrote:
(08-02-2021, 06:53 AM)Cubeology Wrote:
(08-02-2021, 05:24 AM)trdsf Wrote: Pretty much.  The Fermi Paradox is only a paradox in a universe that's infinite in time, and this universe is not.

Based on how long it took for complex life to develop after simple life arose, the perspective that life is common and complex life is not is perfectly reasonable, taking the principle of mediocrity into account.  It could be wrong, but we're going to need to hear something—a lot of somethings—in the radio spectrum to invalidate that position.

If I had to make a guess, I would say that there are four or five technological civilizations in our galaxy, including us.  On average, that implies the nearest is thousands of light-years away at a minimum.

I would probably say that the number of tech civs present at any given time is probably far less than your number based on the fact that many of them will go extinct for one reason or another. Even if hundreds of them in this galaxy have arisen over the course of the last billion years or so the chance of any of them existing concurrently with us is vanishingly small. So the question is how many survive the discovery of atomic power or even the future discovery of controlling antimatter in any quantity. Just think how fast one person with an antimatter bomb could destroy everything. There are so many things that could end a high-tech civilization before it becomes starfaring. So the real question is how many civs survive to be starfaring and become mostly but not completely immune to sudden extinction. There is no way to calculate but the number could be extremely small and we could even have the galaxy to ourselves.

Again, applying the principle of mediocrity, I assume that of however many civilizations there are, about half are doing a better job of managing any violent or self-destructive societal tendencies they may have than we're doing.  And a lot of that is probably driven by the kind of creature they evolved from -- pack hunters, foragers, scavengers, predators, whatever.

Also, I don't think there comes a time that interstellar travel ever becomes easy.  I doubt there's a shortcut around the speed of light, and so any interstellar trip is always going to be a massive undertaking -- and therefore uncommon, but not impossible.  A civilization would have to have pretty well tamed their own planetary system before moving to even the nearest star looks like a good idea, and interstellar exploration will be by robot and AI or near-AI for a very long time.  I strongly doubt there will ever come a time that some sentient can just hop in the saucer and zip off halfway across the galaxy with the same casualness as driving from Chicago to Cleveland.

I agree, I don't think interstellar travel will ever be fast, but I think it will be easy. Power is the biggest problem and antimatter would solve that, even before that constructing solar power stations very near the star at both ends that could use lasers to propel ships would solve most problems. Then again there would be very little need to send ships back and forth once a colony was established, there is nothing that is valuable enough to defray the cost of shipping it. Information would be the only trade good between stars. 

Even if we managed to create a warp drive, it is hard to imagine it being powerful and efficient enough to reach Star Trek speeds.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)