BBC: Universe "too queer" to grasp--- Dawkins ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4676751.stm

Wasn't that Bob Heinlein:

"The world is not only stranger than you imagine, it's stranger than you
_can_ imagine."


Gary Woods AKA K2AHC- PGP key on request, or at home.earthlink.net/~garygarlic
Zone 5/6 in upstate New York, 1420' elevation. NY WO G

In message , Alfred A.
Aburto Jr. writes
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4676751.stm

"The universe is not merely queerer than we imagine, it is queerer than
we can imagine".
"The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's
comprehensible".
--
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

In message , Gary Woods
writes
Wasn't that Bob Heinlein:

"The world is not only stranger than you imagine, it's stranger than you
_can_ imagine."

Haldane. But I prefer Einstein's view.

Alfred A. Aburto Jr. wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4676751.stm

A good quote from that article is:

"Because we exist in such a limited section of the universe, and given
its enormous scale, we cannot expect to be the only organisms within it,
Professor Dawkins believes."

Which I agree with.


Keep searchin',
Martin

--
---------- OS? What's that?! (Martin_285 on Mandriva)
- Martin - To most people, "Operating System" is unknown & strange.
- 53N 1W - Mandriva 10LE GNU Linux - An OS for Supercomputers & PCs
---------- http://www1.mandrivalinux.com/en/concept.php3

That's one way to look at it.

On the other hand, we appear to exist in a physical zone such that
perhaps we are the most capable portion of the universe which can
understand itself. By zone, I'm not referring to planetary goldilocks
zone -- but our size: somewhere between the macro and micro scales,
plenty of elemental diversity, and a certain gentleness that allows
intricate formations like the human brain to form (not at the center of
a neutron star, that's for sure...).

Queer or not, this layer of nature (not geographic, but rather of
magnitude) is probably as good as it gets for understanding things.

Martin 53N 1W wrote:
Alfred A. Aburto Jr. wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4676751.stm


A good quote from that article is:

"Because we exist in such a limited section of the universe, and given
its enormous scale, we cannot expect to be the only organisms within it,
Professor Dawkins believes."

Which I agree with.


Keep searchin',
Martin

Paul Bramscher wrote:
[...]
plenty of elemental diversity, and a certain gentleness that allows
intricate formations like the human brain to form (not at the center of
a neutron star, that's for sure...).

Queer or not, this layer of nature (not geographic, but rather of
magnitude) is probably as good as it gets for understanding things.

An interesting aspect.

Also, the physics for our scale of life allows for intricate complexity
to form and be successful and be supported...

"Goldilocks" not only in zone but in scale

Regards,
Martin


--
---------- OS? What's that?! (Martin_285 on Mandriva)
- Martin - To most people, "Operating System" is unknown & strange.
- 53N 1W - Mandriva 10LE GNU Linux - An OS for Supercomputers & PCs
---------- http://www1.mandrivalinux.com/en/concept.php3

In message , Paul Bramscher
writes

Martin 53N 1W wrote:
Alfred A. Aburto Jr. wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4676751.stm
A good quote from that article is:
"Because we exist in such a limited section of the universe, and
given its enormous scale, we cannot expect to be the only organisms
within it, Professor Dawkins believes."
That's one way to look at it.

On the other hand, we appear to exist in a physical zone such that
perhaps we are the most capable portion of the universe which can
understand itself. By zone, I'm not referring to planetary goldilocks
zone -- but our size: somewhere between the macro and micro scales,
plenty of elemental diversity, and a certain gentleness that allows
intricate formations like the human brain to form (not at the center of
a neutron star, that's for sure...).

Queer or not, this layer of nature (not geographic, but rather of
magnitude) is probably as good as it gets for understanding things.

Couple of points - first, Prof. Dawkins said "organisms", not "complex
organisms" (much less intelligent). There's a huge gulf between the
first life on Earth, which may have appeared soon after it cooled enough
and been reborn several times after successive disasters, and the
appearance of anything with more than a single cell, which apparently
took almost the whole history of Earth.
And second, in direct contradiction :-) I wonder if there's any
environment too hostile for complex life. I've just been reading some of
Stephen Baxter's fiction, where he suggests that whole evolutionary
histories may have happened in the first microseconds after the Big
Bang, and that as the universe cools it may host organisms for whom a
single thought takes as long as a species lasts on Earth.
--
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

"Paul Bramscher" wrote in
message ...
That's one way to look at it.

On the other hand, we appear to exist in a physical zone
such that
perhaps we are the most capable portion of the universe
which can
understand itself. By zone, I'm not referring to
planetary goldilocks
zone -- but our size: somewhere between the macro and
micro scales,
plenty of elemental diversity, and a certain gentleness
that allows
intricate formations like the human brain to form (not at
the center of
a neutron star, that's for sure...).

Queer or not, this layer of nature (not geographic, but
rather of
magnitude) is probably as good as it gets for
understanding things.

Martin 53N 1W wrote:
Alfred A. Aburto Jr. wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4676751.stm


A good quote from that article is:

"Because we exist in such a limited section of the
universe, and given
its enormous scale, we cannot expect to be the only
organisms within it,
Professor Dawkins believes."

Which I agree with.


Keep searchin',
Martin

Quite so. It is also quite possible that our universe is
only one of an infinite number (or enormous finite number)
of sister universes within a larger multiverse. This could
result from either so-called "parallel" universes,
i.e.dimensions, or "bubble" universes, all within an even
larger dimensional milieu. This would allow the different
"universes" to possibly have differing physical constants
(randomly chosen) which define their laws--only one or a few
would have the appropriate fine-tuning of these constants
for life to arise...we are such a "Goldilocks" universe.
....tonyC

"Jonathan Silverlight"
wrote in
message ...
In message , Paul Bramscher
writes

Martin 53N 1W wrote:
Alfred A. Aburto Jr. wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4676751.stm
A good quote from that article is:
"Because we exist in such a limited section of the
universe, and
given its enormous scale, we cannot expect to be the
only organisms
within it, Professor Dawkins believes."

[snippage]

Couple of points - first, Prof. Dawkins said "organisms",
not "complex
organisms" (much less intelligent). There's a huge gulf
between the
first life on Earth, which may have appeared soon after it
cooled enough
and been reborn several times after successive disasters,
and the
appearance of anything with more than a single cell, which
apparently
took almost the whole history of Earth.
And second, in direct contradiction :-) I wonder if
there's any
environment too hostile for complex life. I've just been
reading some of
Stephen Baxter's fiction, where he suggests that whole
evolutionary
histories may have happened in the first microseconds
after the Big
Bang, and that as the universe cools it may host organisms
for whom a
single thought takes as long as a species lasts on Earth.

Very true. The problem here is we know so very little about
the manifold parameters of life which allow it to appear.
Could life survive, if it did appear, in drastically
hyperthermal or hypothermal environments (using carbon-based
or some different chemistry)--could it survive in the
ultrastrong magnetic fields and plasmas which permeate the
galaxy? We have no idea. There could be some form of energy
being living in many nooks and crannies of the
galaxy--magnetic life could exist in suns and we would never
know it. We still have much to learn before putting
arbritary boundries on the limits of life...or, for that
matter, intelligent life. ...tonyC

--
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.