The motivated Assupmtion

[BrunosStar]

The basis of all theories has its roots in unprovable assumptions. Ultimately this means that all knowledge is based in a belief or faith.

Given that with today 's thinking an ET arrival is impossible. What if those objections could be over come? Below is a link to a site that approaches the exploration of the galaxy very differently. Granted the author is a little over zealous, but after you read it you'll get the point as to why it was done that way.

http://luvinspoon.tripod.com

So given a new approach, what does that do to the assumption criteria for new theories? Can a belief based on scientific speculation be equivalent to a religious belief?

Bruno

 

[Liamo]

The basis of all theories has its roots in unprovable assumptions.

Bruno,

Could you expand on this and provide examples?

Thanks,

Liam

 

[FutileJester]

Given that with today 's thinking an ET arrival is impossible.

I don't think this is at all the scientific consensus (if that's what you mean by "today's thinking"). It is absolutely possible. It could be fairly said, however, that there is no good evidence that they have been here in the past or that they are doing so now.

So given a new approach, what does that do to the assumption criteria for new theories? Can a belief based on scientific speculation be equivalent to a religious belief?

What new approach? What assumption criteria for new theories? Can you expand on this a bit?

 

[arcticpenguin]

The basis of all theories has its roots in unprovable assumptions. Ultimately this means that all knowledge is based in a belief or faith.

Others are asking you for more info, but I'd like to say that if you're going to try the old, tired "belief based on piles and piles of evidence is no better than belief based on faith" bit, I've heard it all before, there is no merit to that argument, and I have better things to do with my time, like clip my toenails.

 

[espritch]

So given a new approach, what does that do to the assumption criteria for new theories? Can a belief based on scientific speculation be equivalent to a religious belief?

There is really no such thing as scientific speculation. There is only speculation. A scientist may speculate on some observed phenomena (i.e. form a hypothesis), but the hypothesis does not become science until it is subjected to the process of science – accumulation of evidence, testing, and peer review. Wackos like to claim science is just another religion. They do so mainly because they know their own hypothesis will fail the test of science, so they must declare the process of science to be faulty or subjective. Once they have gone down this path, they are essentially in the realm of religion where a thing is taken to be true because they believe it to be true.

From the site:

While you may challenge my claims lack evidence, you can not deny the plausibility of my arguments on the basis of the science that I use to describe ET.

So he’s going to use science to describe an ET for which he lacks evidence? Without evidence, there is no science.

 

[BrunosStar]

re:science

So he’s going to use science to describe an ET for which he lacks evidence? Without evidence, there is no science.

Sure there is, it's called a hypothesis.

Bruno

 

[Denise]

Re: re:science

Sure there is, it's called a hypothesis.

Bruno

A hypothesis is an eductated guess. You have to have some sort of evidence for that, or else it's not educated.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Denise,

A hypothesis is an educated guess. You have to have some sort of evidence for that, or else it's not educated.

An excellent point.

The purpose of s scientific hypothesis is to provide an explanation for a set of observations. With respect to the existence of ETs, the observation that needs to be explained is the observation that all accounts of encounters with ETs are extremely unreliable. The hypothesis that this is because we have never actually been visited by ETs does a pretty good job of explaining this observation. It also has the nice property of being falsifiable.

If we want to answer the question of whether extraterrestrial life exists or not, we need to start with the hypothesis that it does not, and proceed by actively attempting to falsify it. It is exactly what things like the SETI project are attempting to do.

What we should not be doing, is constructing elaborate conspiracy theories and fanciful scenarios, in order to try to reconcile the available evidence (or lack thereof) with whatever preconceived notions we may have about the subject.

As for the original claim in this thread:

The basis of all theories has its roots in unprovable assumptions. Ultimately this means that all knowledge is based in a belief or faith.

This ignores the fact that theories do not equal knowledge. Our theories become knowledge only by verifying them with reliable evidence. If we simply made up theories, and then accepted them as true (as religions do), then that would be faith. But that is not how science works.

Even the fundamental principles of science are based on solid supporting evidence. Sure, they cannot be logically proven to be valid. No statement about reality can be logically proven to be true. All that means is that there is no such thing as absolute knowledge.

if you want absolute certainty of something, that is when you have to have faith. You might as well just call it wishful thinking, though, because that is really all it is.

Dr. Stupid

 

[BrunosStar]

Re: Re: re:science

A hypothesis is an eductated guess. You have to have some sort of evidence for that, or else it's not educated.

I think you fail to see what observations can be used. For instance, Carl Sagan speculated that life on other worlds could exist. He based his hypothesis on life here on earth. If we apply the Drake equation, another hypothesis, to the possibility of intelligent life, we can conservatively get 2400 civilizations with a sophisticated technology. The Drake equation's flaw is time; it doesn't factor when civilizations can exist. So we're looking at a time period of some 300 million years! It also doesn't factor how many times a species or how many different species on a single world can attempt developing sophisticated technology.

So now that I have given you the observations by which the hypothesis is based on, you can understand the next step. The next step is developing a conceivable method by which an ET can use to actually get here. Once a method is developed, a means of explaining how an ET could find us needs to be developed. The site offers both an explanation of how to reach and find earth or the slew of earth like planets in our galaxy.

So the hypothesis is based on evidence, but it is indirect evidence and is based on the probability of such events as the creation and evolution of life happening else where in the universe. So the statement on the site is scientifically accurate:

"It is inevitable that an ET would visit earth. It is inevitable if in our galaxy there is an intelligence that can produce a sophisticated enough technology and has a desire to explore the cosmos. If this contingency is met, then earth has been visited, is being visited or will be visited."

Note it doesn't say it has to be here, only that the potential of an ET reaching us is inevitable some time in earth’s existence.

Bruno

 

[phobos]

Given that with today 's thinking an ET arrival is impossible. What if those objections could be over come? Below is a link to a site that approaches the exploration of the galaxy very differently. Granted the author is a little over zealous, but after you read it you'll get the point as to why it was done that way.

http://luvinspoon.tripod.com

The guy's read 2010

von Neumann spaceprobes: fine, but not EPR communications. Yes, the spooky channel communicates 'instantly' but to actually transmit useful information then you have to send information along conventional channels too. EPR allows secure communications, but not FTL. Remember that if information can be propagated faster than light, it can also be sent back in time.

 

[BillyJoe]

Anyone know what sort of optical illusion those cigar shaped objects represent?

 

[BrunosStar]

Re: Re: The motivated Assupmtion

The guy's read 2010

von Neumann spaceprobes: fine, but not EPR communications. Yes, the spooky channel communicates 'instantly' but to actually transmit useful information then you have to send information along conventional channels too. EPR allows secure communications, but not FTL. Remember that if information can be propagated faster than light, it can also be sent back in time.

I think you're confusing the modulation of the channel with actually using the causality effects to send information. In effect you can use quantum-computing techniques to perform qu bit operations on an entangled particle. This measure of the particle would then effect the partnered particle. So information can be sent FTL.

AS far as FTL going back in time, you have a very poor understanding of time. Time has a very definitive nature; it is cause and effect, why relativity was able to predict time dilation. Time dilation is due to the increased path that reactions (cause and effects) would take under motion or gravitational fields. Why time is entropic in nature. Many people confuse time dilation with being able to travel back in time, thinking if it slows down it could then even reverse. Any abstraction using relativity to demonstrate backward travel in time, describes time as being similar to a spatial dimension, which is inappropriate. So FTL simply realizes zero time, as does the speed of light.


Bruno

 

[FutileJester]

Re: Re: Re: re:science

I think you fail to see what observations can be used. For instance, Carl Sagan speculated that life on other worlds could exist. He based his hypothesis on life here on earth. If we apply the Drake equation, another hypothesis, to the possibility of intelligent life, we can conservatively get 2400 civilizations with a sophisticated technology. The Drake equation's flaw is time; it doesn't factor when civilizations can exist. So we're looking at a time period of some 300 million years! It also doesn't factor how many times a species or how many different species on a single world can attempt developing sophisticated technology.

This is still speculation, not evidence. And besides, I don't think anyone here is questioning that ET life is possible, even probable. They are questioning 'hypotheses' about specific modes of ET space travel based on, apparently, nothing.

So now that I have given you the observations by which the hypothesis is based on, you can understand the next step. The next step is developing a conceivable method by which an ET can use to actually get here. Once a method is developed, a means of explaining how an ET could find us needs to be developed. The site offers both an explanation of how to reach and find earth or the slew of earth like planets in our galaxy.

I don't see how unfounded speculation is ever the 'next step'. We cannot possibly sit here on earth and just think about ET's and come up with what they 'must' be like. We need to observe them. As a sci fi fan, I'm all for wild speculation, but let's keep it where it belongs. A good story does not make good science.

Have you ever read any Sagan? You should be aware that he thought SETI was the 'next step'. Why? To collect hard data for a testable hypothesis.

So the hypothesis is based on evidence, but it is indirect evidence and is based on the probability of such events as the creation and evolution of life happening else where in the universe. So the statement on the site is scientifically accurate:

"It is inevitable that an ET would visit earth. It is inevitable if in our galaxy there is an intelligence that can produce a sophisticated enough technology and has a desire to explore the cosmos. If this contingency is met, then earth has been visited, is being visited or will be visited."

No, it is not scientifically accurate. I doubt one could ever say that something which has never been observed before is inevitable. Even if we assume ET life is inevitable, it is possible that time and distance constraints ultimately deny an actual encounter. Making this kind of absolute statement about the unknown future is an act of faith, not science.

Note it doesn't say it has to be here, only that the potential of an ET reaching us is inevitable some time in earth’s existence.

Hmmm... To take a random example from the site you linked:

So how can ET get here and solve all the technical, economic and sociological problems? ET is the master of nano-technology, ET’s spacecraft do not carry living occupants, ET’s spacecraft are no larger than a pea! ET has made billions of these ships to explore billions of stars. Each star is sent several small ships so as to insure a successful mission in case one ship should fail for whatever reason. The nano-ships do not contain any miniature rocket engines or fuel. The small ships can be accelerated with far less energy than what would be required for any Star Trek ship. A solar sail propels the pea size ship. The sail is super thin much like an insect’s wings only thinner! The ship tacks around ET’s sun to accelerate to 30 percent the speed of light. It journeys to its star where it tacks to decelerate. It uses infrared and optical sensors to detect planets with the greatest probability of sustaining life. The ship detaches from its sail once it determines it will land.

This sounds a lot more specific than 'it should happen eventually'. What in the world are these ideas based on?

And that's the crux of the matter. You're making some huge leaps to make a belief sound like science. Sagan speculated on ET life, so they must use nanotech and solar sails. Drake wrote an equation full of unknown coefficients, so there are 2400 technological civilizations.

Speculation is fine. Speculation dressed up to sound like science is not. You say this is a hypothesis? A scientific hypothesis must be, in principle, falsifiable. What experiment could you design to attempt to falisfy this hypothesis? If no conceivable experiment could, then it's not science.

 

[Martin]

I think you're confusing the modulation of the channel with actually using the causality effects to send information. In effect you can use quantum-computing techniques to perform qu bit operations on an entangled particle. This measure of the particle would then effect the partnered particle. So information can be sent FTL

That's news to me. Last I heard to make any sense of any message sent by entanglement, th receiver requried the results of a measurement made by the sender. These results, of course, would have to be sent by other means, and so there is no FTL messaging here. Am I out of date?

AS far as FTL going back in time, you have a very poor understanding of time

No, he's entirely correct.

Many people confuse time dilation with being able to travel back in time, thinking if it slows down it could then even reverse. Any abstraction using relativity to demonstrate backward travel in time, describes time as being similar to a spatial dimension, which is inappropriate. So FTL simply realizes zero time, as does the speed of light

Completely false. Light can be used to divide spacetime into three regions. Suppose we fire out a single burst of photons in all directions. They will describe a sphere expanding in time. Viewed in the geometry of spacetime, they will describe a cone. This is the future lightcone. We can define the past lightcone in the obvious way.

Now - the separation between us and:

any point within our lightcone is timelike,

any point outwith our lightcone is spacelike

any point on the lightcone is null.

Timelike intervals preserve causality - if two events are separated by a timelike interval, there is no frame of reference in which the events are simultaneous or reversed in time. Spacelike intervals, on the other hand, do not share this property. In fact, for any two events separated by a spacelike interval one can always choose to transform to a different frame of reference in which the order is reversed. By definition, any two points connected by a FTL signal must be separated by a spacelike interval. Thus one can always choose a frame of reference in which the signal is seen to propogate backwards in time.

 

[BrunosStar]

Re: Re: Re: Re: re:science

This sounds a lot more specific than 'it should happen eventually'. What in the world are these ideas based on?

And that's the crux of the matter. You're making some huge leaps to make a belief sound like science. Sagan speculated on ET life, so they must use nanotech and solar sails. Drake wrote an equation full of unknown coefficients, so there are 2400 technological civilizations.

Speculation is fine. Speculation dressed up to sound like science is not. You say this is a hypothesis? A scientific hypothesis must be, in principle, falsifiable. What experiment could you design to attempt to falisfy this hypothesis? If no conceivable experiment could, then it's not science.

The idea that you’re quoting is based on a very simple principle of mass to energy ratio. A large star ship, as in Star Trek, takes a lot more energy than a much smaller ship. We see such examples in nature; insects can walk on ceilings as easily as walking on the ground, why? Gravity is not much of a burden due to its small size. And so with a small Star Ship, solar sails can propel such small ships to a higher percentage of the speed of light than could nuclear powered Star Trek ships! Can we falsify this idea? It already has been, count less times, with Newton’s second law of motion, F= MA.


Bruno

 

[BrunosStar]

That's news to me. Last I heard to make any sense of any message sent by entanglement, th receiver requried the results of a measurement made by the sender. These results, of course, would have to be sent by other means, and so there is no FTL messaging here. Am I out of date?

You are incorrect in your understanding of entanglement. The entangled particles affect each other upon measurement of one of the particles.

Completely false. Light can be used to divide spacetime into three regions. Suppose we fire out a single burst of photons in all directions. They will describe a sphere expanding in time. Viewed in the geometry of spacetime, they will describe a cone. This is the future lightcone. We can define the past lightcone in the obvious way.

You are, as all the others, inappropriately describing time as a spatial like dimension. Time is cause and effect. Time dilation works by a very specific process. Motion and gravity lengthen the distance between any two points as compared to either a frame moving slower or in less gravity. So any reaction will take longer in comparison to other frames that are in different environments. Time described as a cone is not accurate, time is, once again, cause and effect, not a future time line, or a past time line. There is no preservation of any reaction in terms of causes. The only memories of the reaction are the effects.


Bruno

 

[Martin]

You are incorrect in your understanding of entanglement. The entangled particles affect each other upon measurement of one of the particles

I'm well aware of that. That is why I said 'to make any sense of any message sent by entanglement'.

You are, as all the others

By 'all the others', I assume you mean physicists? This is pretty elementary stuff.

Time is cause and effect

And, as I explained, the ordering of two events connected by a FTL signal is dependent on frame of reference.

Irrelevancies snipped

Have you actually performed an experiment which disproves relativity? Or are you just making this up as you go?

 

[RichardR]

You are incorrect in your understanding of entanglement. The entangled particles affect each other upon measurement of one of the particles.

That is according to the Copenhagen Interpretation. Of course, it may well not behave like that.

And even if it does, (as Martin pointed out), you cannot signal anything at faster than light speed. For any meaningful information to be passed, the receiver must have the results of a measurement made by the sender.

 

[FutileJester]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re:science

The idea that you’re quoting is based on a very simple principle of mass to energy ratio. A large star ship, as in Star Trek, takes a lot more energy than a much smaller ship. We see such examples in nature; insects can walk on ceilings as easily as walking on the ground, why? Gravity is not much of a burden due to its small size. And so with a small Star Ship, solar sails can propel such small ships to a higher percentage of the speed of light than could nuclear powered Star Trek ships!

And I'll say it again: this is speculation. Interstellar travel may happen as described. Some reasons are presented as to why it is plausible that interstellar travel may happen as described. But to say that this is how interstellar travel must happen is ludicrous. We don't even have a grand unified theory of physics yet; how can we possibly say with absolute certainty what an advanced alien technology will resemble? That's just arrogance. We don't know.

Can we falsify this idea? It already has been, count less times, with Newton’s second law of motion, F= MA.

Uh, right. Want to explain the incredible leap by which classical mechanics proves the inevitability of solar-sail nanoships?

And you obviously don't understand falsification. If the hypothesis is 'interstellar travel must happen by these means', then a falsification would be to observe interstellar travel by some other means. Until we get a detailed view of actual interstellar travel, or achieve it ourselves, the hypothesis cannot be falsified. We have to be content with ambiguity in the face of knowledge we simply don't have yet.

 

[phobos]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re:science

And I'll say it again: this is speculation. Interstellar travel may happen as described. Some reasons are presented as to why it is plausible that interstellar travel may happen as described. But to say that this is how interstellar travel must happen is ludicrous.

One thing I will say is that of all the proposed approaches to interstellar travel, this one is the most cost-effective. The author of the webpage in question has misunderstood EPR and he is perhaps excessively optimistic about the potential of nanotechnology, but there's nothing outright absurd in his model of interstellar travel. If you don't mind the fact that the meat never leaves home, it's great. He's definitely the brightest ufologist I've ever heard of (although that's somewhat faint praise...)

However, without FTL communication over EPR channels, there's no possibility of telepresence. The probes have to be fully automatic. I'd want them to be able to enter a star system, replicate themselves a few times, refuel and move on entirely without consulting base. And I wouldn't want the replication to be entirely perfect - I'd quite like these things to evolve. It would be interesting to see, once they've covered the whole galaxy, what variants have arisen along the way.

Philosophically, is this any different from more traditional giant crewed starships? The important thing is that our descendants spread out and cover the galaxy; but need they be our biological, DNA descendants? Why not our electronic successors?