Intoscience

AFAIK there is no mathematical reason why time travel into the past is not possible (someone may correct me on this). I think the issue is maybe more around the causality aspect. Essentially unless some rules are introduced, like splitting timelines, multiverses etc... then going back in time creates paradoxes, the "grandfather paradox" probably being the most popular one. Where time travelling into the past may allow effect to precede cause, which violates logic and the laws of nature. e.g. You go back in time and kill your grandfather, which prevents you being born, which stops you going back in time to kill your grandfather... Obviously if time travel was possible then there would have to be some mechanism to prevent paradoxes happening, hence timeline splits, or multiverses, or no matter how you attempt to change the past something happens to prevent it etc...

Yes I agree, this is why I was asking Andrew what he is stating/asking and if he is arguing that abiogenisis is not repeatable. It appears, as you clearly pointed out to him, that he is changing his argument from unrepeatable process to identical outcome.

To the OP, Andrew, Can you clearly define what you are arguing please. The title of the thread implies a question - Why Are We alone... You then state that nothing ever happens twice (as Swansont pointed out to you). You then move on to try and defend the argument that nothing is ever created identical to anything else. ??? Are you are arguing that there is no reason to believe abiogenisis could repeat elsewhere in the observable universe, and this is why we are alone? Assuming this to be the case, then my answer would be that, I don't personally believe anything. I think we don't yet know enough to make a judgement on abiogenisis either way. As far as I'm aware, we have not been successful in replicating (based our current data and understanding) abiogenisis in the lab experimentally using the basic chemicals and environmental conditions present around 4 billion years ago. However it appears that this is what happened here on Earth, so we are confident it has happened at least once (we are good evidence), given the right conditions there is no reason to believe it may not be possible to repeat elsewhere. How rare life emerging is, how often it may occur and how complex it may become are further arguments we can extrapolate from this original one.

I think, after reading through this thread it appears that some are discussing different levels of nothing and what this means in the context of the situation. For example, Q. What does empty space contain? A. Nothing, its empty. Q. But empty space is full of, well... empty space A. Yes, but empty space is a state not a thing. Q. But space is a thing, it can be defined? So, you can easily see how the concept of "nothing" and what it actually means in context is as important as what we actually mean by nothing. In the trues sense of what nothing means is exactly what it describes - no thing, so anything that can be regarded as something, is by definition not nothing. (that was a mind twisting sentence). Doesn't matter whether its matter, energy or information if its describable as a thing then its not nothing. Then as we delve deeper into the semantics and contradictions associated with such. You could for example, consider nothing as a "state" but then this could be considered a contradiction, since a state is something, its a description. The way I personally try to conceptualise nothing in the true sense of the word, is to consider nothing as the absence of everything; space, time matter energy, information, consciousness, life, sprit, god, meaning, thought...

I never stated that you didn't understand what nothing is?? I was just reiterating my understanding. Can you explain in more detail why you asked the question of the spark plug electrodes please? I'm not sure what answer you are looking for. Thanks

Thank you for the welcome, I'm glad you picked up on the contradictions, this was sort of my point and the analogy you presented points this out quite clearly. "I have just one apple in my bag. I eat the apple. Now bag contains nothing" - is not a true statement. It should be - "I have just one apple in my bag. I eat the apple. Now my bag contains no apple". The bag by the very fact that it is a dimensional object contains at the very minimum empty space. So, going back to the OP, the only way the box could have "nothing" inside it is to have no inside in the first place. Which is a contradiction and nonsensical. My point which I've sort gone the long way round to state is. "nothing" in the true sense of the word is the absence of existence which is outside the realms of reality as we understand it. This is just one of many hypothetical nonsensical concepts, like - Before time existed, Beyond infinity...

I guess this is where semantics and definitions play a key part in describing the scenario. Nothing and no thing essentially mean the same thing is nothing not a derivative of no thing? Nothing in simple terms means non existent. So to say no existence can enter or not enter the box is nonsensical. The box exists and the space inside the box exists by the very fact that the box defines it. Don't forget we are talking about an hypothetical object, where the box by definition has nothing but empty space separating its walls. We know that this is physically impossible based on our current understanding of quantum mechanics. But lets say that hypothetically the box is empty of all matter, all energy and has a quantum state of zero, regardless of this, to even exist as a box within this universe there will, by definition, still be space in the box, simply because the box has dimension, therefore it exists in space & time along with the space inside the box. So in the true sense of the word the box doesn't contain nothing. You cant have a system where there is a defined space that contains nothing. Contain and nothing (actual nothing) are not mutual. The term in the context of this thought experiment "contains nothing" is non sensical. It's a bit like saying what was before time, where "before time" in the true definition of the meaning is nonsensical. The best we can say is that the box contains nothing but empty space.

I guess the crux of the question depends on the definition of "nothing". A difficult one to answer in its own context without adding any further complications. For me these types of questions can be nonsensical when you delve into what is physically possible. It's a bit like asking what came before the big bang, if the big bang was considered the moment of all creation. Well the first obvious answer is "nothing", then we get right back into what defines nothing in the true sense of reality. There is an hypothesis that states that "nothing" can't be, in that nothing is unstable as it requires something to define it. Which is why there is something rather than nothing. Going back to the OP, I guess that if we state that the box just contains empty space then, yeah sure that space would move with the box since nothing can enter the box. But true nothing has no dimensional or physical properties in every sense of the word therefore cannot exist even in empty space. What make this scenario worse is the fact that the box itself is defining an area of space so the box contains something. Nothing therefore exists (want for a better word) outside of all existence, time, space etc... so its non quantifiable in physical measurement and also in concept.

I chose "Another planetary system". However, my personal beliefs are as follows: 1, Life most likely exists elsewhere in the observable universe, though technological life is most likely extremely rare. 2, There is no reason to assume UAP's/UFO's are anything as fanciful as aliens visitations, and most likely not. 3, Space is so vast and the odds of simultaneous existence so low, even if technological life did exist elsewhere, then the likelihood of communication between any from differing star systems is pretty much zero 4, If technological advanced intelligence exists then we have absolutely no way of even contemplating what it looked like, or what, if any, its intentions might be. 5, It's possible we (humans) are the only technological intelligence in the galaxy. Its also possible that if we continue to advance technology and also manage to survive long enough we may spread out across our galaxy. However Its my personal belief is that our A.I development will attain the singularity that some predict and that this will then become the dominant intelligence capable of interstellar migration and occupation (assuming this becomes one of its goals). Obviously all this is speculation and just my personal beliefs based on what I currently know or understand. Out of all the possible answers to chose from in the poll, I felt this was the most likely of the options.