Area54

I've selected a single sentence that represents what I feel misses the mark with your entire post. I have made no claim that there has been a consistent decline (in bad things, per capita) over millenia, so why bring it up? I sense that regardless of what facts I place in front of you will continue to exerise a relgiious fervour in pushing your agenda. If I wanted that kind of discussion I would go to a fundamentalist Christian website. Thank you for your time.

I've said no, but with the caveat that this applies to now and is a general prohibition. When we have a high level of confidence that a given amendment will eliminate a genetic disease, without risk, then such genetic alteration should be accepted. (This is probably already true in some instance.) Gene alteration for other reasons should wait until our ethics have caught up with our technology.

Your first post was myopic, focusing only on what was wrong with the world. I implictly accepted all your concerns and offered an alternative viewpoint. Why you felt the need to repeat your initial points again is beyond me. At least you have, finally, conceded that there is progress in some areas. Please take up the matter of an imagined Utopia with those who imagine a Utopia, not with me. Exactly so.

There is a long history, almost all of it, of life forms killing other life forms, directly and indirectly, deliberately and accidentally. I'm not surprised that we are continuing this tradition that, after all, led to our existence in the first place. In a world where the lion lies down with the lamb we know what the lion is having for dinner. Agreed. We quite possibly are responsible for extinction of most mega-fauna globally and we didn't pay a blind bit of attention to that. This one we have recognised and some of us at least are trying to do something about it. Do you consider our recent ability to recognise, on a global scale, the impact we have as progress, or not. If not, why not? (Hint: pointing out the lunancy of Republican naysayers doesn't count.) Did I assert that things were perfect? We developed the technology of fire and destroyed many habitats thereby and we didn't even know we were doing it. Now we recognise the problem. Problem recognition is the first step to problem solution. Then mark me 10 out of 10 for hubris and lack of hindsight. Do you realise it is possible to be deeply aware of the evil, the injustices, the horrors, the inhumanities, the prejudices, the hatred, the destruction, the indifference that permeate human society and yet to recognise the growing concern, effort, commitment, focus and desire to make things better. They say an optimist lives in the best of all possible worlds and a pessimist fears he is right. You appear to be a pessimist. Good. So you acknowledge some progress. It is how that technology is applied that will determine whether it is good or ill. I view the American obsession with guns are ludicrous, but I acknowledge the truth in the mantra "Guns don't kill people, people do." You might want to take that up with the mosquitos, who dispose of 750,000 a year, as opposed to less than half a million by fellow humans. Apart from the whales I'm not sure that is true in each instance. Let me focus for a moment on the deer. In parts of the UK they are screwing up the natural habitat and threatening the survival of several species and entire ecosystems. Do you recommend we stop culling them and let the ecosystems perish? I rather like the solution of reintroducing wolves and letting them take care of them. And, despite the ongoing global conflicts, fewer people are dying violently than in the past. My eyes are wide open to the problems that still exist. I'm sorry yours are closed to progress that is being made. I don't need to rebut something that addresses something I never said in the first place. If you don't want to have your arguments labelled as strawmen then don't make strawmen arguments. Your latest post is more of the same. I never denied that in some parts of the world people worry where there next meal is coming from. (Point of information, those people generally don't have pets.) Why bring it up? I've made no declaration at any time about world government. Why bring it up? The problem of getting people to forego more of their luxuries to benefit those in need is a serious problem. I have never denied that and it is implicit in my recongition that many problems remain. So, why did you bring it up? We know that assholes are assholes. Why bring it up? Instead, why don't you address what I have actually said and tell me which of the examples of progress I have mentioned you disagree with.

Including a specific selection of the numbers 14 and 96?

No, I wouldn't think that we would be immeasurably better. What makes you think I would think that? You have raised a strawman. I thought I had read enough of your posts to believe that you wouldn't stoop to such behaviour. Please specifically address the improvements and progress I did discuss. Are you denying that those improvements and progress did occur? And even your strawman attack is distorted. You are examining absolute numbers, not percentage of the population. If I played the same game I would have hundreds of millions enjoying a lifestyle unimaginable to medieval kings. So, lets deal with what I've said, and not what you whimsically pretend I've said.

There is an excellent series of novels by the SF author Phillip Jose Farmer that begins with "To Your Scattered Bodies Go". The premise is that aliens have been recording the details of all humanity for tens of thousands of years. This has enabled them to resurrect everyone on Riverworld, a planet with a river flowing backwards and forwards across it, with no means of scaling the mountains that hem in each riverbank. You might be able to discuss your ideas in the context of SF, contrasting your thoughts with Farmer's view. Here's a heads up. Farmer's aliens and the motive for their resurrection of humans and the quality of the afterlife is at odds with your optimistic view.

Are there an infinite number of integers? Yes, there are. Are there a finite number of integers between 14 and 96? Yes there are. Thus a finite "realm" may be part of an "infinite" realm. This isn't rocket science. I don't do rocket science.

No. No. No. The observable universe , the universe we can actually see, is finite. There is no doubt about that. We have every reason to accept that there is more of the universe that is not observable. That portion may be finite or it may be infinite. You seem to be confusing eternal and infinite. The former usually references time, the latter space.

Yes, to a slowly increasing extent, really. We have moved to a time when beheading and stoning to death are looked on unfavourably by the majority of the population, unlike the past. Nations work together to halt, or minimise at least some genocides and seek punishment for those involved afterwards. The status of women, at least in the West, is finally approaching a measure of equality. The US had a black president. The mayor of London is an ethnic Pakistani. I could go on all day... Just because we are not there yet is no reason to ignore the progress that has been made. Just as having made that progress is no reason to ignore how far we still have to go.

Thank you. I generally stay clear of physics, but I thought I had picked up that smattering of knowledge somewhere along the way.

This sort of thing is well above my pay grade, but these items appear to contradict you, at least as far as the possibility of non-continuity. https://phys.org/news/2016-04-universe-space-time-discrete.html#jC "In quantum gravity, quantum mechanics and classical physics are at odds: scientists are still uncertain how to reconcile the quantum granularity of space-time with the theory of special relativity." http://www.phys.lsu.edu/faculty/pullin/sciam.pdf This popular piece by Lee Smolin is accompanied by the heading "We perceive space and time to be continuous, but if the amazing theory of loop quantum gravity is correct, they actually come in discrete pieces." http://sci.esa.int/integral/48879-integral-challenges-physics-beyond-einstein/ "Einstein's General Theory of Relativity describes the properties of gravity and assumes that space is a smooth, continuous fabric. Yet quantum theory suggests that space should be grainy at the smallest scales, like sand on a beach. " There appear to be dozens, perhaps hundreds, of such articles. I don't wish to take this thread so far off-topic, but I'd like to get this straight in my own mind.

Your world view is based largely on things you have come to believe. The evidence you have used in arriving at these beliefs is minimal and certainly insufficient to justify them. Specifically: We have insufficient data to know whether or not there are any other intelligent beings in the galaxy, or even the universe. Since we lack a definitive knowledge of how life and intelligence emerged on the Earth it is impossible to assess the probability of it arising elsewhere. Your strategy of "inviting" extraterrestrials is based upon a naive and unsupported belief that they are fundamentally benevolent and (with even less the support) the belief that many of them have formed a peaceful Federation. You have no evidence to support the idea that intelligent, conscious AIs already exist. It is a fantasy based upon wishful thinking. Your ideas are all very nice, warm and fuzzy, good-feeling ideas, but they have nothing supporting them. Passable fiction. Deplorable science.

Is this correct? I thought from a quantum perspective space was necessarily granular and that until we have a ToE, or reach some similar insight, the matter (Accidental pun) will not be resolved.

It seems that, despite reaching the natural end of their life, some threads can be resurrected multiple times.

You mean we shall be ruled by pornographers?

That's doubtful. You don't appear to understand what science is. What led you to these particular ideas? At what point in your trajectory as a scientist did the doubts grow to the point you felt "they" had it wrong?

What you may have given is the cross section of a cucumber. Since Charon-Y is a biologist that seems appropriate.

Contrary to what you believe, saying "they are here" is very unsafe, if you wish to be accurate. UFOs, as several have pointed out, are by definition, unidentified. All we know is that a wide variety of people have seen unexplained objects in the sky. The vast majority of these have been identified as birds, planes, Venus, meteors, flares, hoaxes, etc. The remaining unexplained cases are precisely that: unexplained. There are several better potential explanations than alien spacecraft. You say "We can not detect the extraterrestrial life with our inadequate technology", so how are we able to detect them (as UFOS) when our technology is inadequate. That makes no sense. The simplest explanation for why we have yet to make first contact is that they are not currently visiting us. It's a delightful beleif, but do you have any evidence to support it? You think that, influenced by items of popular culture, many people consider that aliens may be hostile, dangerous and evil. You consider this irrational and unreasonable, based upon the fact that they haven't done anything to us yet. But there are several potential reasons for that: The most obvious one - there is no sound reason to believe they are here. They are not yet here in sufficient numbers to take action. They are sadistic swine who enjoy watching us mess up our world and fight each other. They are waiting till our population reaches 10 billion before they start the meat processing. I think your belief that you can accurately foretell how aliens would choose to introduce themsleves to us is optimistic to the point of being naive. This might just make the grade as a third rate science fiction story, but as a reasonable projection of reality it fails completely.

You are using words in a way wholly different from even their colloquial usage and certainly at odds with their technical meaning. Your beliefs may not be all that different from the facts, but your idiosynchratic way of expressing them makes them look flawed, irrelevant and silly. Would it not make more sense to use words in the same way as the majority of other members? It would avoid controversy and you might actually get your point across.

Please don't presume to tell me what I do or do not want. I assure you I do want to know some details of this claim you have made that there is dissension in the scientific community about the Copernican principle. You have made the assertion. Now substantiate it, or concede that you were mistaken in believing that was the case. I am not asking to get into it here. I am asking to you simply to provide information about the claim. If there is dissension in the scientific community then there will be numerous peer reviewed papers discussing that dissension. All I need is a link to one of them. Frankly, I would be amazed if a scientist or two had not rejected the concept. That, however, would not constitute dissension in the scientific community. That's just a couple of mavericks being contrary. I would be astounded if several scientists had not revisited the concept and subjected it to intense scrutiny. That, however, would not constitute dissension in the scientific community. That's just a variety of scientists being rigorous in their application of the scientific method. So please, where is this dissension? Anybody? Edit: I do hope you are not referencing the Anthropic Principle, which in many of its guises is wholly compatible. But I won't know until you share your "secret" with the forum.

Any scientist who does not admit ignorance is not worthy of the name scientist. I am hugely ignorant. Specifically I am ignorant of this dissension in the scientific community regarding the Copernican principle. Please help educate me by providing links to articles, preferably peer reviewed, that discuss it.

You are dead right there.

Yet you are unwilling to share the facts on which you based your conclusion. Choosing not to share facts on a science discussion forum is neither smart nor courteous. It smacks of trolling. I am reasonably sure you are not stupid, nor do you intend to troll, or be rude, so I look forward to reading about the facts you base your world view on.

I can relate to this quite strongly. These are the same kind of thoughts I used to have, but then I learned the art of skepticism and critical thinking and I grew up. I thoroughly recommend it. Everything you are speaking of is based on your feelings. Great things, feelings, but utterly useless in determing facts and understanding reality.