A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old September 29th 18, 03:37 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 11:22:42 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

That only impacts the new pile, not the original. After the count I
know whether the original number was even or odd. And I can repeat

the
test on each new pile I create.


Not if one of the grains in the original pile breaks without you
noticing it and before you count it. It requires superhuman
capabilities to keep track of each and every one of several billion
grains.

In a way this resembles Heisenberg's uncertainty principle: you
cannot measure anything without affecting it in some small way.


I believe you totally miss the concept of a though problem. We can
ignore such practicalities. Replace "sand" with "ball bearings" if you
like. Or even with individual atoms. The point is, the proposed system
is countable. At most it depends upon the right technology. The count
of particles is knowable... unlike the existence of deities which have
the power to hide themselves outside the Universe.
  #202  
Old September 30th 18, 05:32 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Paul Schlyter[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,344
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 08:37:23 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 11:22:42 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:


That only impacts the new pile, not the original. After the

count I
know whether the original number was even or odd. And I can

repeat
the
test on each new pile I create.


Not if one of the grains in the original pile breaks without you
noticing it and before you count it. It requires superhuman
capabilities to keep track of each and every one of several

billion
grains.

In a way this resembles Heisenberg's uncertainty principle: you
cannot measure anything without affecting it in some small way.


I believe you totally miss the concept of a though problem. We can
ignore such practicalities. Replace "sand" with "ball bearings" if

you
like. Or even with individual atoms. The point is, the proposed

system
is countable. At most it depends upon the right technology. The

count
of particles is knowable... unlike the existence of deities which

have
the power to hide themselves outside the Universe.


So deities which lack this power to hide, their existence is knowable?
  #203  
Old September 30th 18, 05:50 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 18:32:16 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

So deities which lack this power to hide, their existence is knowable?


It seems likely. I've seen nothing to suggest that anything in nature
is unknowable, so I'd only reserve certainty of unknowability for the
supernatural.
  #204  
Old October 1st 18, 06:53 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Paul Schlyter[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,344
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 10:50:10 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 18:32:16 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:


So deities which lack this power to hide, their existence is

knowable?

It seems likely. I've seen nothing to suggest that anything in

nature
is unknowable, so I'd only reserve certainty of unknowability for

the
supernatural.


The existence of radio communication is definitely knowable. A few
centuries ago, it would have been considered supernatural to be able
to send messages apparently instantly (and definitely much faster
than with a courier riding a fast horse) over long distances, even
when direct visual contact was not possible.

Btw I encountered some new worlds the other day:

Nontheism - vaguely similar to atheism but still different. There are
nontheistic religions for instance, like some varieties of Buddhism.

Apatheism - having no interest in the question about the eventual
existence of deities. An apatheist is therefore neither a theist nor
an atheist. You say apatheists do not exist, but if so, why invent a
word for a non-existing property?
  #205  
Old October 1st 18, 08:21 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 11:53:39 PM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

Apatheism - having no interest in the question about the eventual
existence of deities. An apatheist is therefore neither a theist nor
an atheist.


Presumably, such a one still firmly believes that he does not need to receive
the Lord Jesus Christ as his personal savior, in order to avoid spending eternity in the lake of fire. Hence, for some purposes (can he be manipulated or
controlled by thumping the Bible at him) he might as well be an atheist. So
there is no interest in making the distinction.

John Savard
  #206  
Old October 1st 18, 02:44 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Mon, 01 Oct 2018 07:53:36 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

The existence of radio communication is definitely knowable. A few
centuries ago, it would have been considered supernatural to be able
to send messages apparently instantly (and definitely much faster
than with a courier riding a fast horse) over long distances, even
when direct visual contact was not possible.


Sure. But it's difficult to imagine what we might find supernatural
today. Today we understand most of nature. I doubt Clarke's Law
applies anymore. I don't imagine we could encounter any technology
advanced enough to appear as magic. We now have enough knowledge to
recognize the likely natural law underlying anything we encounter,
even if we lack perfect understanding.

Btw I encountered some new worlds the other day:

Nontheism - vaguely similar to atheism but still different. There are
nontheistic religions for instance, like some varieties of Buddhism.


In actual usage, nontheism and atheism are synonyms.

Apatheism - having no interest in the question about the eventual
existence of deities. An apatheist is therefore neither a theist nor
an atheist. You say apatheists do not exist, but if so, why invent a
word for a non-existing property?


"Apatheism" is a portmanteau of "apathetic" and "atheism". A recent
word which refers to unreflective atheism. An apatheist is an atheist
who doesn't give the matter any thought and isn't interested in any
underlying philosophical questions about the matter. All apatheists
are atheists, but not all atheists are apatheists.
  #207  
Old October 1st 18, 02:59 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gerald Kelleher
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,551
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

Any experience that opens up sorrow or joy in a person is supernatural for the intimacy is borne inside the person from an external agency whether something seen, heard or both.

The hapless may have conjured up the word supernatural for their own ends as external agency as distinct from human experience but then again when did they ever connect with something greater than themselves.

The dour and dull never incorporate the old festivals when people were closer to nature which is perhaps why they mock what they don't understand, however, people with a sense of the poetic mixes with common sense come to appreciate those festivals where the spirits of our ancestors mix with our own.. The Gaelic festival of Halloween was the annual equivalent of the human cicadian rhythm which, in this case divided the year into a dark half and a light half -

https://www.newgrange.com/samhain.htm

Nowadays they call the loss of balance 'seasonal affective disorder' or SAD which surfaces as depression. The older cultures of Northern Europe developed ways to deal with the seasonal swings and built them into their festivals such as All Souls Day or Halloween.

  #208  
Old October 2nd 18, 01:41 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 659
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 8:23:54 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 06:18:14 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 10:22:01 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Uh, no. Everywhere in the Universe is the same.


If only one civilization existed on one certain planet? Then that place
would be different.


No, it wouldn't, except in the most trivial of ways.


Okay. Got it: you believe civilization is trivial.
  #209  
Old October 2nd 18, 02:41 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 659
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 3:55:55 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 05:49:40 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 3:47:01 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter

wrote:

You are hopelessly overoptimistic. The typical distance between
galaxies is millions of light years or more.


That's true ... TODAY. What about 9 billion years ago?


Back then the galaxies were some 3 times closer to one another than
today, so the typical intergalactic distance were perhaps about a
million instead of millions of light years.

But, more importantly, back then there were few if any population I
stars in existence. All stars back then were population II stars,
which have very little, if any, elements heavier than H and He. Those
heavier elements are required to form life. So back then there was no
life in the universe, that we can say with great certainty. Back
then, our Sun and our Earth did not even exist. Life, of all kinds,
formed later.


9 billion years ago there certainly WERE stars with heavy elements:

http://www.astronomy.com/news/2016/0...forming-theory

Although their metallicity was only 20% of stars near us, that's pretty
good for 11 billion years ago, wouldn't you say?

Therefore you are saying that any civilisation would with great
probability learn interstellar travel at or near light speed.


I believe there are other alternatives.


Such as wormholes? Or did you have something else in your mind?


Wormholes, Alcubierre=type drives, transit to other branes, and ways not
even a glimmer in the eyes of theoretical physicists.

Are you even aware of the difficulties involved? For instance,
colliding with a grain of sand near light speed would mean the end of
your expedition.


Indeed, I am quite aware of the difficulties. That's why I think
there are alternatives.


WHICH alternatives? How can you travel millions of light years in
just millions of years without traveling at near light speed?


Answered above.

So that one survivor can spread its DNA over the whole galaxy
in a few million years.

Now you are getting more modest, which is good. Earlier you claimed
that this one survivor could spread its DNA to **other** galaxies
within the same time span of a few million years. That would require
travel near light speed.


Not necessarily. If this civilization developed, say, 5 billion years
after the big bang, the galaxies would have been closer together.


Not by much. Since the big bang happened 13.5 billion years ago, 5
billion years ago the intergalactic distances already had about 60%
of their current value.


And maybe there's a way to "wink out" there and "wink in" here vitually
instantaneously. We haven't had millions of years of scientific
development yet.

And as we seem to agree, travel near light speed has certain
high-probability risks. I think there are alternative ways to get
from one place to another.


You are very quiet about these alternative ways... why?


"Wink out", "wink in" :-)

Your grasp of probability theory must be very weak, or else you
would not make such claims.


I have to laugh at your assertion again :-)) Are you familiar with
the Law of Large Numbers?


Do you consider one to be a large number? One is the number of
planets known to have life...

The law of large numbers say that if you repeat an experiment a large
number of times, the outcome will be very close to the expected
value. But, in the case of life in the universe, we have no idea what
the expected value is. So the law of large numbers does not help us
here.


Sure it does. We don't have to know the expectation value. We KNOW it
happened ONCE. Given ENOUGH chances, it will happen again. Given what
we know about planetary systems today, about the number of stars in our
galaxy, about the number of galaxies in just the VISIBLE universe and
the tininess of the visible universe, you don't believe it hasn't happened
MANY times? If so, you are an amazing pessimist!

And how can we be certain that this lone surviving intelligent

? civilization would devote itself to space travel over intergalactic
distances?


Or develop some alternative means where distance isn't important? If "a"
civilization didn't, another one would.


That's your guess, and it is a far cry from "absolutely certain" that
it actually is so.


YOU are the only one talking about "absolute certainty." I'm talking about
probabilities.

You and I are working from different assumptions. Are you familiar
with Paul Steinhardt's Ekpyrotic theory?

https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0103239

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe

It posits a cyclic universe. If it has any credence it means that past
universes existed. If intelligent life is as rare as some here believe,
it becomes a virtual certainty that it developed in a previous genesis,
maybe millions of times. If some couldn't find a way to transport itself
from one genesis to the next, one would have. Imagine, a civilization
billions of years old appearing on the scene 13 billion years ago!


But what if it doesn't have any credence? We don't know if it has, so
we can only guess. And you must do much better than guesswork to be
able to reliably claim that something is "almost certain".


Don't be such a pessimist! It's bordering on a mania :-)

That might make a great SF story to outdo even Olaf Stapledon. But I
don't think it's SF. Anyway, now you see why no argument about
probability has any affect on me whatsoever. So, want to discuss the
probability of Steinhardt et al. being right? :-)


You can fantasize as much as you want, but please stop trying to
misuse probability to claim something is "almost certain" when it
actually just is a guess of yours.


Pessimist!

Nope! Something supernatural is something which contradicts physics.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural

"departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to
transcend the laws of nature"

With that definition, radio communication would have been "supernatural"
a few centuries ago.


Exactly! Now you're getting it :-)

The scientific method requires that a phenomenon be repeatable by any
competent researcher. It also requires the ability to change the
inputs.

No it doesn't. Astronomers cannot experiment with the universe by
changing the input, but despite that astronomy is regarded as a science.


Astronomical science requires that experiments performed here on earth be
valid elsewhere in the solar system, galaxy, universe. Now that we have
sent missions throughout the solar system, that part is no longer
assumption, and we have no choice but to assume it's true throughout the
universe. It SEEMS to be, anyway, but it IS a weakness that certain
scientific disciplines have. Cosmology is a case in point. We have the
Big Bang model, but there are alternatives ...


There are no alternatives today that match empirical data so well.


Irrelevant since we're talking about billion-year-old civilizations.

The discovery of the cosmic background radiation made the "big bang"
win over the "steady state" cosmology. But note that this is not
final. If and when a cosmology appears that matches empirical data
even better, then it will replace the "big bang" as the standard
cosmological model.


The standard model assumes inflation. There are scientists that dispute that.

https://www.wired.com/2008/02/physic...the-beginning/
  #210  
Old October 2nd 18, 08:24 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Paul Schlyter[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,344
Default Neil DeGrasse Tyson headed down same loony road as Carl Sagan?

On Mon, 1 Oct 2018 00:21:08 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:
On Sunday, September 30, 2018 at 11:53:39 PM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter

wrote:

Apatheism - having no interest in the question about the eventual
existence of deities. An apatheist is therefore neither a theist

nor
an atheist.


Presumably, such a one still firmly believes that he does not need

to receive
the Lord Jesus Christ as his personal savior, in order to avoid

spending eternity in the lake of fire.

Not quite. The apatheist is simply not interested in this question,
so he has no opinion whatsoever about it.

Hence, for some purposes (can he be manipulated or
controlled by thumping the Bible at him) he might as well be an

atheist. So
there is no interest in making the distinction.


If there is no such interest, why was the word apatheist even
defined?


John Savard

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Denial of Neil deGrasse Tyson's Science Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 April 24th 17 06:58 PM
NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON DISHONEST OR JUST SILLY? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 August 6th 15 12:14 PM
Neil (EGO) Degrasse Tyson STEALS directly from Sagan RichA[_6_] Amateur Astronomy 4 April 17th 15 09:38 AM
NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON : CONSPIRACY OF THE HIGHEST ORDER Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 July 14th 14 04:32 PM
'My Favorite Universe' (Neil deGrasse Tyson) M Dombek UK Astronomy 1 December 29th 05 01:01 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.