Water appears common. There was a report of an unimaginably large amount of water around a distant black hole.
Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )
Sort:
ever notice that the more ppl use words like elegant and beautiful and simplicity to 'interpret' stuff the further they float from physics/SM ? another benevolent patron of the arts & philosophy...yee !
Jun 9, 2020
0
#2404
Abstract
Elegance is a prized quality in science that is associated with simplicity and explanatory power. This essay considers the qualities that make a scientific model, experiment, method, or theory "elegant," with a focus on the life sciences. We propose a definition of elegance that includes clarity, cleverness, correctness, explanatory power, parsimony, and beauty. The pursuit of elegance can improve the quality of science, but elegance must be pursued with caution, as the truth is sometimes inelegant. - copied
and btw, ur not a real scientist if u sit there and preach to us the deepest of need for the rigors of the SM...and then hotflash asesthetic words to back up ur latest luvfest hypotheses. cuz im not gonna letchu get away w/ it. sorry not sorry.
Jun 9, 2020
0
#2406
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
ever notice that the more ppl use words like elegant and beautiful and simplicity to 'interpret' stuff the further they float from physics/SM ? another benevolent patron of the arts & philosophy...yee !
No.
The most respected physicists commonly use such terms in describing deep insights. They also have a long track record of success using them to select hypotheses that later turn out to be true. It's essentially a highly refined form of Occam's razor.
Of course the Scientific Method requires that empirical data is the final arbiter. A good example would be that supersymmetry has long been a very attractive idea to physicists, but no data has yet confirmed it (all a wide subset of examples have been eliminated by experiments at CERN and elsewhere). As a result, while there are still versions of supersymmetry that are compatible with the lack of confirming data, the level of belief has faded somewhat.
ur need to find that beauty is NOT a good guide to figuring out nature. just ask the SM !
Jun 9, 2020
0
#2408
Incorrect. Hypotheses need to be selected somehow.
Simplicity is the strongest guide and has a tremendous track record. Complexity is added when required to explain data, not before.
ok. think about it. ur tryn2explain things about stuff u'll never experience w/ ur senses. nor have u. nor will u ever. and for it2be ? it needed to be some kind of benefit to the natural selection you sooo vehemently adhere to like pt barnum.
now. tell me without passion nor ur fanciful romantic adjectives. wut advantage is there to understanding QM ? huh-huh-huh ??
and lemme remind u. science is not art...has never been...and never will it be !
science = 1/art
this is the only math lesson ur gonna get from me.
....and u will not be badmouthing neither art nor philosophy and then turn around & use it in the fields of science. not on my watch there buster (teeth grit squint).
Science is the inverse of art. If you divide one by art, you get science.
One what, though? A .... hedgehog?
sorry opti. u know me. im just being opinionated and defensive a my <3felts and mad that its the worse day of the week. ::/
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
sorry opti. u know me. im just being opinionated and defensive a my <3felts and mad that its the worse day of the week. ::/
Monday for you, or is Garfield that bad at counting?
MustangMate wrote:
The numbers all sound spot on. Chances are good the aliens will confirm such speculation.
Just wondering- if there were only 1x10 to the 20th water sources and not the 30th as predicted, does this lower the chances life exists on other planets? Just when do the odds become low enough to exclude possibility? If large numbers in probabilistic form indicate certainty of other life, very low probabilistic numbers mean what ?
What if you subtract 2 from infinity. It doesn't makes any difference so to make significance. I said earth's nothing but a micro dot. Now tell me is it not possible to have another dot of same kind in centillions of such dots?. That what expectancy of life says. There are trillion places where biochemical can form up like on earth. We don't claim aliens because we have not seen them for serious. But probability claims trillions of them. Suppose you went for fishing in a sea. Now there's a region having large coral reef bed. You took your boat there and caught thousands of fishes there. Because coral reefs are home to many fishes. Now you go ahead search for other spots but you couldn't find reefs in your 100 km journey. You get disappointed and declared that there's no fish in the sea except the one area where you found them in thousands. This is the situation we are in now we are not capable of searching the whole universe and the area searched have no sign of life except on earth. But this doesn't means we declare that life exists only on earth. We can't simply avoid the rest 99.999999999999% space. There's a good or say better chance of having similar coral reef in that sea with even more fishes. As we search more we filter more of 99.99999....% space. Mathematics says nothings uneven but physics says unevenness increases only if we magnify our scale... Believe me we are not alone and believe me maybe they're also trying to find us at the same time instant we are trying......
no. im usually fine w/ mondays. its tuesdays i hate - w/ drama.
What if you subtract 2 from infinity.
they say thats just dum math. theres no such thing as infinity to the materialist. they're not allowed to believe in it. and trust me i'll remind them.
as far as being found ?...i hope so. u try living on a rock.
Vibhansh_Alok wrote:
MustangMate wrote:
The numbers all sound spot on. Chances are good the aliens will confirm such speculation.
Just wondering- if there were only 1x10 to the 20th water sources and not the 30th as predicted, does this lower the chances life exists on other planets? Just when do the odds become low enough to exclude possibility? If large numbers in probabilistic form indicate certainty of other life, very low probabilistic numbers mean what ?
What if you subtract 2 from infinity. It doesn't makes any difference so to make significance. I said earth's nothing but a micro dot. Now tell me is it not possible to have another dot of same kind in centillions of such dots?. That what expectancy of life says. There are trillion places where biochemical can form up like on earth. We don't claim aliens because we have not seen them for serious. But probability claims trillions of them. Suppose you went for fishing in a sea. Now there's a region having large coral reef bed. You took your boat there and caught thousands of fishes there. Because coral reefs are home to many fishes. Now you go ahead search for other spots but you couldn't find reefs in your 100 km journey. You get disappointed and declared that there's no fish in the sea except the one area where you found them in thousands. This is the situation we are in now we are not capable of searching the whole universe and the area searched have no sign of life except on earth. But this doesn't means we declare that life exists only on earth. We can't simply avoid the rest 99.999999999999% space. There's a good or say better chance of having similar coral reef in that sea with even more fishes. As we search more we filter more of 99.99999....% space. Mathematics says nothings uneven but physics says unevenness increases only if we magnify our scale... Believe me we are not alone and believe me maybe they're also trying to find us at the same time instant we are trying......
Open minded and rational, dig it. 
Vibhansh_Alok wrote:
Thee_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
What if you subtract 2 from infinity.
they say thats just dum math. theres no such thing as infinity to the materialist. they're not allowed to believe in it. and trust me i'll remind them.
as far as being found ?...i hope so. u try living on a rock.
Do yo know what we call much far off objects in physics, we call the object at infinity. If you don't understand you just shouldn't talk anything about it
Vibhansh_Alok wrote:
Ok let's see how one second on earth goes like—
9003 tweets
2918134 Emails sent
84387 YouTube videos viewed
83377 Google searches
740,000 WhatsApp messages
So this was internet data of one second. You can ask me the source
Now let's talk life—
1.80 humans dies in a sec.
4.3 births per second.
Why I m talking about this? What's the connection?
Well this shows what actually we do is not only done by us. Most of the time every action is simultaneously done by more than a person. This all happens on a single planet of land area 510.1 million kilometers square.
More than a hundred life ends and starts in a minute.
This earth is even less than a size of a cell for a body called universe.
Now you expect that all those figures above happens only on this negligible size planet.
You can expect water sources in a 200 km range in a desert but can't expect to have two or more water sources in a 1×10³⁰+ km range in universe?
This means life exists . Not only on a micron sized dot called earth but maybe on a trillion planets. We're not only one to send a mail at any instant in this dot. Then how can it be that only we live in a place containing centillions of such dots. Still it can't be conformed that alien exists. But probability tells that we are not alone to have eyes and ears in this whole universe....
Try to understand I m not a philosopher but don't believe in complete randomness....any questions?>>
Good post. There are competing theories regarding the prevalence of potentially life-bearing planets. I reject the idea of hot life that's silicon based and believe that it must be water and carbon based to become intelligent. Won't go into why I think that.
There are arguments that intelligent life-bearing planets are very common and arguments that they're very rare. I believe they are extremely rare and for intelligent life to form, it must be on a planet with the characteristics of ours, on or very near the rim of a spiral arm or the extreme outer limit of a non-spiral galaxy. That reduces the interference from other celestial bodies to a point where intelligent life gets a chance to exist.
Despite such planets being very, very rare, there are still going to be millions of them but perhaps not a trillion.
Randomness, or true randomness, or complete randomness is obviously an abstract concept that exists as a mathematical limit for behaviour. I've stated this before but basically, there are too many people here trying to be clever and Lola has her work cut out, cutting them down to size. The extreme rarity of intelligent life per cubic light year goes a long way to explaining why we haven't been visited by much of it here on this thread.
Nevertheless, randomness is still a subjective concept in that it depends on the human ability to recognise patterns, which is a mutual function of the ability to predict events. I know there are people who don't like this idea but they'll have to live with it unless they truly believe that randomness is defined randomly. It does look like some people believe that.
Humans can build machines to aid them in their pattern recognition and predictive endeavours. But ultimately, if a pattern of events cannot be identified, then prediction of events is impossible, making the sequence of events random, and as such, we cannot differentiate between this semblance of reality and "true reality". I've said this before too, several times, and yet there are people here on this thread who do not understand it and who may even imagine or try to claim that I'm wrong. I previously perhaps didn't fully understand the difference between an IQ of 170 running on a clear(ish) but far from perfect mind and other humans. Perhaps this is why they constantly have wars. OK, I did, really!
I’m open to “other worlds”
Just not outside our own.
Perhaps other worlds exist, but only within the one we see.
Your open to other world's huh? Elaborate..
Just not outside our own. What??
"Perhaps other world's exist, but only within the one we see." Oh? And which one do 'we' see?