No tangible evidence

[OConnor_LFC]

This theory has been with me for a while now, in the same way we have bacteria living on our planet is it possible that we are bacteria living inside another life forms world. It sounds crazy but if you think about it bacteria spreads and evolves, it evolves like humans to become more suited to its environment.

 

We haven't really got any idea what space is or how big or small our existence is, we could be a tiny spot of bacteria on somebody's kitchen table just waiting to be bleached away.

 

Maybe I watch too many sci-fi movies.

[Roamer]

Well, social constructions/organisations; like church,state, multinationals etc, are evolving for quite a while now, most have a longer lifespan then any human as well.

 

Something bigger then that, well, we tend to value events insofar they effect us, and if the bleach comes our way we 'll have to deal with that just like any other natural disaster.

[Acme]

This theory has been with me for a while now, in the same way we have bacteria living on our planet is it possible that we are bacteria living inside another life forms world. It sounds crazy but if you think about it bacteria spreads and evolves, it evolves like humans to become more suited to its environment.

 

We haven't really got any idea what space is or how big or small our existence is, we could be a tiny spot of bacteria on somebody's kitchen table just waiting to be bleached away.

 

Maybe I watch too many sci-fi movies.

I didn't think sci-fi or movies, I thought Horton Hears a Who.

 

Anyway, we do know within useable limits the sizes both big and small of our existence. Our detectors cover enough of the range of the electromagnetic spectrum that were there something bigger and alive on the scale you suggest then we would detect regular rhythms/signals indicative of life. The only 'steady' signal all around us is the cosmic microwave background and it is for all intents and purposes just static.

[OConnor_LFC]

I didn't think sci-fi or movies, I thought Horton Hears a Who. :-pAnyway, we do know within useable limits the sizes both big and small of our existence. Our detectors cover enough of the range of the electromagnetic spectrum that were there something bigger and alive on the scale you suggest then we would detect regular rhythms/signals indicative of life. The only 'steady' signal all around us is the cosmic microwave background and it is for all intents and purposes just static.

Who's to say that the range we cover is big or small?, we might not Even have the technology to detect the signs. Think about every generation that earth has seen, every last generation thought they had tangible evidence that the earth was flat and stars where gods etc...... They all had 1 think in common......they all thought that they where the smartest, in reality what we believe and know today might be far from the truth tomorrow.

[Strange]

This sounds like the sort of thing we used to make up at school when we compared solar systems to atoms. But we now know that atoms are nothing like that: they don't consist of electrons orbiting a central nucleus so the analogy just doesn't work.

 

 

in reality what we believe and know today might be far from the truth tomorrow

 

While true, that is also completely useless. The theories we had in the past were solidly based on what we knew then. The theories we have know are based on current knowledge. Speculating about future unknowns is not science. And, given the lack of detail, not even science fiction.

 

Also, while our theories will almost certainly be adjusted in future, it is very unlikely they will be shown to be completely wrong. There are almost no instances of that in science. The only two I can think of are phlogiston and the steady state universe. Everything else has been a progressive refinement of our understanding.

[OConnor_LFC]

This sounds like the sort of thing we used to make up at school when we compared solar systems to atoms. But we now know that atoms are nothing like that: they don't consist of electrons orbiting a central nucleus so the analogy just doesn't work.

 

 

 

While true, that is also completely useless. The theories we had in the past were solidly based on what we knew then. The theories we have know are based on current knowledge. Speculating about future unknowns is not science. And, given the lack of detail, not even science fiction.

 

Also, while our theories will almost certainly be adjusted in future, it is very unlikely they will be shown to be completely wrong. There are almost no instances of that in science. The only two I can think of are phlogiston and the steady state universe. Everything else has been a progressive refinement of our understanding.

We don't know what will be proven right or wrong in future science, we are only a blip in space time, maybe a second to other dimensions. How much more detail do you want from my theory?, if I had detailed theories this would make me slightly delusional. This trail of thought may be beyond your comfortable thinking, this may be to intricate to get a definitive answer.

[Strange]

 

How much more detail do you want from my theory?

 

The point is you don't have any detail at all. You certainly don't have a (scientific) theory. You just have a vague "what if".

[Phi for All]

We don't know what will be proven right or wrong in future science, we are only a blip in space time, maybe a second to other dimensions. How much more detail do you want from my theory?, if I had detailed theories this would make me slightly delusional. This trail of thought may be beyond your comfortable thinking, this may be to intricate to get a definitive answer.

 

We're a science discussion forum, not a "Let me make some wild guesses with no evidence" forum. You gave an hypothesis (not a theory, theories have been studied by multitudes of scientists, have mountains of evidence and withstood every experiment trying to refute it, and is the absolute best you can get in science) and you should try to support it with something tangible, some evidence that turns this from a guess into a possible line of speculation with a bit of rational foundation.

 

That's what the scientific method is for, so we're not guessing, we're mapping out the differences between what we're almost certain of, what we trust as the most current best explanation, and what we suspect is correct but are still developing our ideas about. It's not about proof, it's about trusting our most-supported explanations for various phenomena.

[OConnor_LFC]

http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html

 

Science fiction or non-fiction ??

[Strange]

http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html

 

Science fiction or non-fiction ??

 

It is a TL;DR speculative article about AI (I stopped reading at "Kurzweil").

 

Maybe you need to start a new thread and say what you think is interesting about it. It doesn't appear to have anything to do with the subject of this thread.

[OConnor_LFC]

It is a TL;DR speculative article about AI (I stopped reading at "Kurzweil").

 

Maybe you need to start a new thread and say what you think is interesting about it. It doesn't appear to have anything to do with the subject of this thread.

You never read the full two articles so I'd say you are in no position to say what is relevant to this thread.

[Strange]

You never read the full two articles so I'd say you are in no position to say what is relevant to this thread.

 

The perhaps you could explain, rather than just posting a link.

[OConnor_LFC]

What I think is interesting is like in my original post I spoke very briefly spoke about a world that we as humans cannot fathom possible. These articles cutting a very long story short bring to light more "scientists" that agree that there are things we cannot think possible. Our brains can only go so far (think Steven Hawkins said something similar).

 

If you read the articles you would know what I mean.

 

It goes on to talk about the divide in intelligence from a chimp to a human, just like it has been proven impossible for a chimp to understand certain things like agriculture it's equally impossible for a ASI to explain certain things it might know to a human. The divide from ASI to humans could be equivalent to a human trying to teach a ant how life works.

 

It's probably not directly connected to my 1st post but it's still a world that nobody can imagine possible, I didn't start a new thread because I didn't want to have two very unpopular threads lol.

Edited September 12, 2015 by OConnor_LFC

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Your thread isn't measuring up to the guidelines for posting here.

[Strange]

What I think is interesting is like in my original post I spoke very briefly spoke about a world that we as humans cannot fathom possible. These articles cutting a very long story short bring to light more "scientists" that agree that there are things we cannot think possible.

 

So your great insight is that there are things we don't don't, especially about the future, and maybe even things we can never know or understand.

 

Forgive me if I'm not impressed.

[OConnor_LFC]

Woooooosh ........

[Strange]

Woooooosh ........

 

Then perhaps you need to better explain what you are saying.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

OConnor_LFC

 

You have already been told that your thread is not complying with our guidelines for speculations. In your next post please go some way to rectifying this. If not we will lock the thread.

 

[andrewcellini]

Woooooosh ........

as it is you who is attempting to make some sort of argument, you may want to consider being more clear. no one here has direct access to your thoughts, and there are probably going to be more misunderstandings about what you're trying to say.

[OConnor_LFC]

No argument, I just thought my topic/links where worthy of a talk about. My point was simple, in my 1st post I had no tangible evidence, the other day I stumbled across this article and it explains in depth how things we thought impossible become possible. Credible scientists, years of research put into this. It's as credible as anything we know about physics.

[Strange]

No argument, I just thought my topic/links where worthy of a talk about. My point was simple, in my 1st post I had no tangible evidence, the other day I stumbled across this article and it explains in depth how things we thought impossible become possible. Credible scientists, years of research put into this. It's as credible as anything we know about physics.

 

There is a difference: what we know about physics is based on evidence (and models tested against that evidence). Your vague idea and guesses about the directions of future technology have no supporting evidence.

[Phi for All]

No argument, I just thought my topic/links where worthy of a talk about. My point was simple, in my 1st post I had no tangible evidence, the other day I stumbled across this article and it explains in depth how things we thought impossible become possible. Credible scientists, years of research put into this. It's as credible as anything we know about physics.

 

You're taking a very broad article about new frontiers and applying it's message to your very specific idea, and concluding that by that metric alone, your idea has merit. The data is correct but the information you're drawing from it is flawed, does that make sense?

 

One big problem I see is your last sentence. It tells us many things. You don't know very much about physics, yet you somehow feel comfortable telling physicists about the credibility of their profession. How does that work?

 

We certainly don't mind talking about science, that's what the whole site is all about. But we like to be a bit more grounded, more rigorous in discussing ideas. We need something testable to begin with.

[OConnor_LFC]

I understand what your saying, maybe this wasn't the best thread on a Science forum. Your also right in saying I know less about physics than a professional scientist, on the other hand I still know enough about physics to grasp the concept of every book I have ever read on physics. I consider this closed.