Likelyhood of Extraterrestrial Intelligence

[Pauly Man]

I remember having a huge debate with one of the Physicists at uni about this. He had just written an article on the probability of intelligent life forming in the universe, and came to the conclusion that it wasn't too unlikely. Can't remember the exact figures.

In it he used statistical analysis to arrive at his answer. He used the evolution of life here on Earth as his statistical sample. A smaple size of 1!

I argued with him for an entire leture about that. I tried to tell him that the sample size was 1, and he tried to use the fact that life on the separate continents had been evolving seperately for millions of years, and that on each continent there had evolved a relatively intelligent life form had evolved. And therefore it was a sample size of greater than 1. Further more that each continent had experienced differences and therefore the samples were independant.

To me that was a load of crap. The sample all came from the same blue green planet. That is a sample size of 1, with a few independant replicates. If he had provided evidence of evolution on Mars, perhaps I would have backed down.

I think it was Loren Booda who said earlier that a sample size of one tells you very little, and that I agree with.

Anyway. Basically all I'm saying is that life on Earth probably tells us very little aboutlife elsewhere. That being said I agree with CJames, in that if intelligent life exists in our galaxy and it is at all common, we would probably have seen it evidence of it by now.

 

[O Great One]

Intelligence responsible for life

Did the Intelligent Designer(s?) create life elsewhere?
Interesting thought...

 

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Pauly Man
I remember having a huge debate with one of the Physicists at uni about this. He had just written an article on the probability of intelligent life forming in the universe, and came to the conclusion that it wasn't too unlikely. Can't remember the exact figures.

In it he used statistical analysis to arrive at his answer. He used the evolution of life here on Earth as his statistical sample. A smaple size of 1!

Where to start? Single positive indication of life in the universe, our own? So of course you are right to criticize that the sample size is way too small.

But I think it is even worse than that. It needs to be a random sample. Starting out with a positive that supports your position? I think that borders on scientific fraud. If, of course, it was about something other than intelligent life in the universe, for which this problem has long been recognized.

So I agree with you 200%.

 

[Rashid]

1962

In 1962 (forgot the exact date) an object was spotted over the Atlantic Ocean and traveled to Arizona in 16 minutes. This object was detected on 2 different types of RADAR systems and fighters scrambled after it. This is all documented and fact.
At first the Military claimed it was an asteroid. This would make sense since according to witnesses it was very bright. But 1,000s of other people in different cities saw it maneuver, stop occasionally, and travel back on its' path. This is why the Military scrambled fighters. Do you think they would be able to catch a meteorite that can travel from the Atlantic Ocean to Arizona in 16 minutes?
Apparently the object exploded over the Arizona desert for unknown reasons.
This object was no atmospheric phenomena since it was tracked on 2 Different RADAR systems. Not to mention if it was an atmospheric phenomena then why would the military scramble fighters over it?
The Military then said it was a jet exercise since those were highly popular in that era. They made a clever mistake when they said it happened over a period of hours. The Military used Zulu time and Pacific time in their report. When you calculate it out by witnesses and by their mistake it turns into 16 minutes. Not hours.
What man made object can travel from the Middle of the Atlantic Ocean to Arizona in 16 minutes making incredible maneuvers and hovering over cities? I just call it a UFO. Doesnt mean it's extraterrestrial though. But it sure makes you think about it.

 

[CJames]

Rashid, can you please provide a link to an article about that as I would really like to question its validity.

 

[Rashid]

History Channel

Actually without hype it was on I believe the Discovery Science 2 nights ago here in Seattle WA I believe. If it wasnt on Discovery Science it was on Sci-Fi or the History Channel. I always seem to catch those episodes. I usually don't listen to them since they are full of Hollywood hype and exageration but this show presented it's information without overexagerated voices or people. It simply stated the facts as if it was doing a presentation. I think I caught it on the TV at about 1-2:00am Pacific time.
Most of those TV shows that show UFO evidence don't hold much ground or seem overdramatic for me to watch. But this was a show that covered various topics so they couldn't stay on the UFO topic too long.
I did a quick Google search and here's what it yeilded. http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/1962.htm This site just lists various UFO sightings on different dates.
http://www.ufo-ufo-ufo.com/53.htm This is a site I just found doing the same search. Seems kinda thrown together and thus might loose credibility. I know that what I see on the Television might be wrong information but the program I watched took the time to interview people who witnessed the sighting (could be actors) and provided Official government documents from the Freedom of Information Act about the problem. They even shown the news paper articles of the first and second Military explanations of the incident.
Sorry to not have the exact information the show presented available at this moment but this is what I watched and remembered about the show. I rarely forget such things. The only thing I seem to forget are womens names.

Rashid

 

[Rashid]

More Evidence and good Evidence

http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/bigsur1.htm

It seems that this site is all about UFO's and doesn't really touch on Extraterrestrial activity. It talks about theories about UFO and the connection to "aliens" but really focus's on actual proof of UFO's.
I highly recommend checking it out.
http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk is the main page for the site. The other link above is an interesting event I never really knew about.

Rashid

 

[HazZy]

maybe if one day we can create life in a laboratory (come on now, it shouldn't be THAT difficult) i will consider the posibility of life being abundant in our universe, but until that day i'll consider it a very very rare gift.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Welcome to PF HazZy !

Originally posted by HazZy
maybe if one day we can create life
in a laboratory

What do you mean ?
In many ways we have, already.
Do you mean watch it form from chemicals
into organic molecules and single-cells ?

Live long and prosper.

 

[HazZy]

thanks!

life from non-life hasn't been accomplished yet to my knowledge. in fact i believe the law of biogenesis is still alive and kicking. i may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure about this one, if you know otherwise please inform .

 

[Royce]

How do we know that they didn't? It's possible that we ourselves are a result of their seeding our planet with DNA. That would certainly be more plausable than making the trip with thousands of settlers over vast distances for long periods of time.
Another thought, maybe they did, toward the center of our galaxy where the stars are not so far apart and ingored the outskirts where the pickin's are so slim. It will be generation before we could ever know.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

I'd like to point out that we are living in
the most likely strip (about 10-15 phousand
light years across) of the galaxy in terms
of potential formation of life. The center of
the galaxy is too violent and the stars have
too much metalicity. The outskirts have stars
with low metalicity. The centers of the galactic
"arms" aren't very hospitable either. We're on
"prime" galactic realestate, you might say.

Live long and prosper.

 

[CJames]

Originally posted by Royce
How do we know that they didn't? It's possible that we ourselves are a result of their seeding our planet with DNA.

That is indeed a possibility. However as I said we would expect to see more evidence.

That would certainly be more plausable than making the trip with thousands of settlers over vast distances for long periods of time.

[??] What do you mean? In order to seed a planet you have to have been there...

Another thought, maybe they did, toward the center of our galaxy where the stars are not so far apart and ingored the outskirts where the pickin's are so slim. It will be generation before we could ever know.

The way life has spread so far on Earth has demonstrated that species don't move together in large groups. Instead, they simply expand outward, evolving along the edges of migration as conditions change. Even on the short time scale, a collony of bacteria doesn't move from area to area, it spreads.

It will be a very long time before we can know for sure that this galaxy is empty, and as a (future) scientist I don't wish to make assumptions. I'm simply stating that the most likely possibility seems to be that this galay is entirely or nearly devoid of intelligent life anywhere but on Earth.

 

[CJames]

We're on
"prime" galactic realestate, you might say.

Which is why we should expect to find extraterrestrial life right here if it is very common.

 

[pete1141]

extraterrestrial life

I think the notion of E.T life falls into the same category as believing in life after death. It's just wish fulfilment. There seem to be an almost infinite degree of variation in forms of cosmic bodies both inside and outside our own galaxy. So why would it be unthinkable that we were unique ? I am not a mathematician /statistician, but would love to know what the odds are or even if it is possible to work out the odds mathematically. My intuitive guess is that the odds for and against ,given present knowledge, are even. I personally think we are unique and all the UFO watchers and yearners for ET life are kidding themselves. I will donate a large summ of money to charity if you can prove me wrong.

 

[Stellar Tourist]

If life is found, one thing is certain they will be no where near our level of technology or civilisation. They will be either so far behind or way ahead of us.

"human beings do not carry civilisation in their genes"

M Mead NY

 

[Chronos]

Statistical treatments are interesting, though controversial. Even though this planet is a sample size of one, the fact that 'intelligent' life exists here does have certain implications. Given the sun is a very average main sequence star, it is reasonable to assume a probability that:

a] stars similar to our sun have companion planets
b] some such planets have chemical compositions similar to Earth.
c] some of these planets have orbits amenable to life.
d] life is likely to arise on such planets.
e] intelligent life will likely to evolve on such planets, given enough time.

Given the large number of stars similar to our sun, even assigning modest probabilities to each of these assumptions results in many planets inhabited by intelligent life forms within this galaxy.

It is, however, very improbable that any two planets, are sufficiently near in space, time and technological capability, to detect each other. We are not detectable by any other civilization, with technology similar to ours, at a distance of more than about 50 light years. Since we have not discovered super-luminal means to send messages, we are not detectable by any other civilization in the universe beyond this distance, unless they have super-luminal means of travel or detection.

The question then becomes why would such an advanced civilization need or wish to disturb one as primitive as ours [assuming they even considered us 'intelligent']? My guess is they would have laws forbidding tampering with us, or our habitat [prime directive thing]. We already know what happens on this planet when advanced societies collide with primitive societies. If technologically far advanced societies exist, and are aware of us, I suspect they would be very careful how they interact with us. Their scientists, most likely, would insist on it.

 

[pete1141]

Chronos . I think your argument is very well put together . However because of the extreme distances involved we ,in al likelyhood will never know the truth. I am a sceptic and am not convinced . I still say there is just as much possibility of there being no life elswhere as there is life. I think we are driven in these arguments as much by our human driven desires and emotions, as by cold logic. The universe contains vast areas about which we know nothing . Objects which defy physical description ,at least by our puny human brains , abound. Yet we are still convinced that there is a 99.99999% possibility that life exists elswhere. I say there is a counter argument that there is a 99.99999% possibility that life does not exist elswhere which people do not like to contemplate ,because of the dread of the possibility of our utter isolation in the universe.

 

[Nereid]

Statistical treatments are interesting, though controversial. Even though this planet is a sample size of one, the fact that 'intelligent' life exists here does have certain implications. Given the sun is a very average main sequence star, it is reasonable to assume a probability that:

a] stars similar to our sun have companion planets
b] some such planets have chemical compositions similar to Earth.
c] some of these planets have orbits amenable to life.
d] life is likely to arise on such planets.
e] intelligent life will likely to evolve on such planets, given enough time.

Given the large number of stars similar to our sun, even assigning modest probabilities to each of these assumptions results in many planets inhabited by intelligent life forms within this galaxy.

Some time ago I amused myself by making some estimates of probabilities like these. With a twist; instead of a single number, I made two guesses for each - 'seems very unlikely to be higher than this', and '(ditto) lower'.

First though, what is the current state of observational data, relevant to this question? Sun-type stars are reasonably easy to see, at least out to several thousand parsecs. While I doubt anyone is actually counting them, from sample, we could estimate there are ~100 million in the Milky Way (+/- 1 OOM).

Of the ~100 exoplanets detected so far around main sequence stars, none are of ~Earth mass. While most of the parent stars of these planets are ~Sun mass, IMHO, there's simply too little data to draw well-constrained conclusions about how common 'our' solar system is.

- - - - end of data, start of speculation (Milky Way) - - -
'Sun'-like stars: 1 billion (Hi); 10 million (Lo)
... with companion planets: 800 million; 100,000
... and chemical compositions similar to Earth: 300 million; 1,000
... with orbits amenable to life: 100 million; 10
... with life: 80 million; 1
... with intelligent life: 1,000; 1

In the next two decades I expect that the probability ranges for each of Chronos' steps will be better constrained, except for the last step. This improvement will come from programs to detect exo-planetary systems, and the finding of (extinct?) life on Mars and/or Europa (or not).

It's the last of Chronos' steps that I think is the most problematic. Making a probably unjustified generalisation, it seems that physics/astronomy folk believe intelligent life is pretty much inevitable, once life starts on a planet - as Chronos says, it's just a matter of time. OTOH, biology folk tend to believe intelligent life is pretty much a fluke; there's nothing in evolution or the geological history of the Earth that favours intelligence. Although it's somewhat dated now, the http://www.planetary.org/html/UPDATES/seti/Contact/debate/default.html gives a flavour of this difference.

Of course, the Milky Way is but one (spiral) galaxy among billions ...

 

[Chronos]

I try not to get philosophical about matters of science, but, I think it is just as arrogant for us to assume we are the center of the universe as it is to assume we are its most unique product... after thought. assuming life arises on any planet, evolution will compel it to become increasingly intelligent to compete. We have numerous intelligent species on this planet. Unfortunately, we fail to acknowledge the nature and level of that intelligence. One night I drank too much and slapped my dog upside the head for absolutely no reason. The next morning I woke up and the old pooch was laying there right beside me licking my hand. Who was more intelligent?

 

[Chronos]

Footnote: I am subscribing to the principle of mediocrity. There is a reasonable probability we are pretty average when it comes to sentient life forms that have ever evolved over the history of the universe. The premises I used [at least 1 thru 4] look fairly solid. The timeline [how many are within communication distance at any given time?] appears to be the main issue. That possibility appears to be the most remote. Perhaps the silence of the cosmos is testimony of how rare civilizations arise within communication distance of like civilizations at the same time. That premise is difficult to disprove given our current state of scientific knowledge.

After-after thought. So, write to your political representative [senator, or whatever you call them] and strike up this conversation:

Citizen: Hey Senator [minister or whatever], I just had a great idea, let's spend billions to build a beacon that will last for a billion years and advertise the fact we were once here.

Senator [minister or whatever]: I like your idea, but, since we will all be dead in a billion years and nobody will give a comets tail, I am going to raise your taxes to defray the cost of answering silly questions like yours.

 

[Nereid]

I try not to get philosophical about matters of science, but, I think it is just as arrogant for us to assume we are the center of the universe as it is to assume we are its most unique product... after thought.

For all we know, the most 'advanced' form of life in the universe is dark matter creatures who inhabit the halos of dwarf galaxies!

Surely it's more important to build from existing knowledge than to make assumptions of any kind?

assuming life arises on any planet, evolution will compel it to become increasingly intelligent to compete.

Yes, that's a common view of many physics and astronomy types, including Sagan. As I said earlier, biologists generally have a hard time with this line; there's precious little to show evolution produces direction of the kind you assert. Further, complex life is pretty recent - why did it take so long after life got going for it to show its face? And, talking of complex life, why not plants? After all, as complex life, plants were there way before animals!

 

[Nereid]

Footnote: I am subscribing to the principle of mediocrity. There is a reasonable probability we are pretty average when it comes to sentient life forms that have ever evolved over the history of the universe.

That's fine, except it doesn't address Fermi's question (Where are they?)

Assume it takes 5,000 years for a sentient life form to travel from one stellar system to another, once it reaches homo sap's current level of understanding of physics and astronomy. In much less than one galactic year (~200 million years) the whole Milky Way would be thoroughly colonised. If sentient life were reasonably probable, the Milky Way would've been colonised well before the Sun was formed.

The premises I used [at least 1 thru 4] look fairly solid.

Agreed, and once we've done some more digging on Mars, as well as Europa (and Ganymede and Callisto), we'll have much more to go on re these.

... including factors often missed in these kinds of discussions; e.g. probability of life on the moons of gas giants (most discussions quickly dive into estimates of 'Earth-like planets').

But how will we ever address the question of whether 'life not like us' exists?

 

[Chronos]

The issue, I think, is how probable that a civilization, such as ours, can find another civilization near enough, intelligent enough, and technologically able to communicate with us at any given time?

 

[Nereid]

How would you go about making an estimate of that probability?

 

[Chronos]

A rough, though reasonable [imo] way to estimate that probability is

http://www.pbs.org/lifebeyondearth/listening/drake.html

I do agree, however, that approach only considers the probability of how many other civilizations exist in the galaxy. It does not consider the likelihood that any other is sufficiently near and technologically compatible for us to communicate with. That probability, I think, is the one that best explains the Fermi objection.

 

[Pythagorean]

maybe we'll design a ship that hitches rides on planets and asteroids to conserve fuel.

furreal though:

in short:
we could establish stations on nearby planets and begin mining their resources.
-------------------------------------------------
in breaths:
If we started colonizing planets and establishing stations and finding ways to mine resources, we could eventually come to a situation where we're using say, Mars to produce and manufacture interstellar ships; and have drop ships from various planetary stations dropping the needed supplies on Mars that have been gathered from various planets where we've established resource-gathering stations.

It probably couldn't be established in our lifetime, but it seems like the only way to go about it if you want to be able to produce the resources required for something like planetary colonization.

----------------------------------------------

Also, whose to say we won't find an efficient way to manipulate atoms in such a way that we can turn any element into any element?

Basically, I refuse to be amung those whose ancestors didn't believe a TV or a satelite were ever possible.

The biggest problem would be waiting for the discovery that sparks the interest of an investor by implying that such technologies are actually persuable AND profitable.

edit: pursuable?

 

[xy]

the life that's out there might be what you all have least expected and all keep that one to myself

 

[owl3951]

A Lot of Assumptions In This Thread

Perhaps the people who enjoy posting in a forum such as this are also a "sample of one." As I was reading I noticed how thought patterns seemed constrained around certain viewpoints of science, and of "scientific" observation of the universe.

As much pride in intellect as I see in these forums (or in my own mind), it is a fact that our species is more moved by emotion than thought: on a ratio of about 99.99 to .01, I would estimate. Hence, art in some form or other (especially "other") is far more important to our species than Science, regardless of how much the "sample of one" in this forum may have opposite views. Almost everything we as a species or as individuals do is emotion-motivated. Most of our rational thought is devoted to rationalizing our emotion-driven actions. If you are a scientist, you can no doubt recognize this fact, however you may wish to value that fact. Nor is it sensible not to accept who we are. Scientists accept reality.

Intuition has to do with how we feel about actions and values, as opposed to how we think about them. I lived in Trinidad and Tobago. Honestly, it seemed near-devoid of overt thinking and planning. As an outsider, I constantly asked people why they did the things they did. Usually, the simple answer was, "My heart told me to." I concluded these people had little-to-no communication with their minds. But the funny thing is, the intuitive process of Trinidadians often resulted in success. Probably no more, but certainly no less, than the number of successful results rational thought would have achieved. The clincher for me was that Trinidadians, person per person, were a far happier people than people of my native USA. Happiness, not riches, was the goal of Trinidadian life. Technologically backward they may have been, but their low crime rate, overall joy in life, acceptance of peoples of all faiths and races, and freedoms of expression, were a more-than-profitable offset from mere material wealth.

I concluded that we, who are so much emotion, must use both rational and heart-based thinking, if we wish a society that progresses both materially and spiritually. In the end, he who dies with the most happiness wins. Since material progress and intelletual attainment also brings happiness, a balanced society would think with both its heart and its head. In cases of a tie, go with the heart.

It is true that thoughts of the heart often cannot be proven via science. On the other hand, thoughts of science often cannot proven via the heart. Science without spirit devolves into crass materialism, while spirit without science degenerates into superstition.

A scientist is supposed to learn from experience. In our history, we have seen how the predominance of superstition in the form of powerful churches sacrificed science on its alter. All those years of potential progress and thought gone. The flip side of the coin is now turned up. Science has weeded the spirit from its garden of knowledge. Yet without both heart and mind, how may we truly be human?

I am not advocating dismissing the dispassionate in proving scientific modelling or observation. However, if we listened to our heart, may we not have been observing or modelling different ideas altogether? Perhaps our models would have developed differently.

It is only lately that any society has had the affluence to develop real science. We are babies in getting the most benefit from it. To think that we may now make grand conclusions about a galaxy we just discovered is to put ourselves in the position of the first European settlers of America, who thought it was all theirs, and it was all the same as the tiny strip of land they first stood upon. In all the glory that now unfolds before us, brought by our fledging and exciting science, we are yet babies, whose eyes are just starting to focus. We think our mother is the world and our egocentric selves own her.

It is with the extraordinary impetus of science starting in the 1800s that we first started breaking our chains of superstition that allowed the churches for so long to proclaim themselves the sole harbingers of Truth. A prophecy of both Christianity and Islam is that in the Last Days the stars will fall from the heavens. Scientific enlightment was partly responsible for the Luminaries of Religion, turned superstition, to be cast from the heaven of understanding. But as scientists filled the vacuum as the exponents of Truth, mankind had already the learning curve.

There is a now a backlash against science. It started with the use and deployment of nuclear weapons. It gathered momentum with the discovery of how “progress” resulted in ecological destruction. It snowballed with the stalling of the U.S. and Soviet space programs, which achieved but one giant step, instead of a series of steps. The science of medicine, which contained such thrilling hope, is now a political football for arguing about costs. Examples go on. It did not take long for the Luminaries of science also to be cast from the heavens.

We are going to see, eventually, that there is only one Truth. We will need every road that leads to It. We will see that all truth is interconnected through Truth. This includes the truths of the poet and philospher, the primitve and sophisticate, Religion and Science, mathematics and playthings, the venerated and the childlike. The famous Traveling Salesman problem of Networking, which no computer could solve because the sheer number of permutations grew too great, was first solved to optimality with soap bubbles.

I suspect Truth is infinite in scope. If there are other intelligences, I bet we will need their divergent ways of relating to their cosmos to grow in understanding.

Consequently, the speculation about the intelligences of other species and what they must do and what they must value and what they must feel, is nothing more than an echo of Manifest Destiny all over again. As scientists we must purge ourselves of such specie-ist thinking. "If they are not like us, they are bad!"

As for the speculations about under what conditions life may develop, I suggest this, too, is nothing more than specie-ism. Chlorine is as corrosive as oxygen. Silicon, like carbon, has eight electron rings. I do not say life will be based upon other chemical bonds and reactions. I say I am a baby to the study of the galaxy, and I need make no conclusions as yet. Most especially, I do not have to conclude that the galaxy revolves around me.

The one fact of life on our planet that may be generalizable is that if there is a way for life to occupy an ecological niche, life will so occupy it. We have life in the snow valleys of the Himalayas, under the Antarctic icecap, in tiny pockets of warmth around magma vents at the bottom of the ocean, in the solid stonework of the lava tubes of the Pacific isles. We have life everywhere you could not expect it.

The most important lesson that science is now teaching us is that we need to develop a Science of Truth. We must become, through our minds, more than we are now to grow in understanding and wisdom.

Some of you may find the next few paragraphs a re-statement of much of René Descartes’ “Meditation 1: OF THE THINGS OF WHICH WE MAY DOUBT.” Also, the slug’s world described below may remind some readers of Edward Abbott’s "Flatland: A romance of many dimensions."

Consider a simple slug crawling upon a sheet of glass. This creature’s world contains but 2 dimensions. Since it is simple, it has no understanding of the time dimension. The slug may move left or right. The slug may move back or forth. That is all it “knows.”

Now assume you have a ray gun that shrinks, without otherwise affecting, whatever you irradiate. You shrink the slug until it becomes so tiny that the otherwise-unperceivable flaws in the glass become small humps over which it must crawl. By changing only the creature’s size, you have caused it to behold a new dimension: up and down. Note that the glass (the creature’s cosmos) did not change. Because the slug’s physical size changed, its perceptions of reality changed.

So it is with humans. We are tiny, in 4 dimensions, in relation to our Cosmos. If we were tinier still, would we directly perceive the 9 dimensions postulated by string theory? Would our understanding change merely because we underwent a change in size? Without doubt, some of our understandings of the nature of the Cosmos would be different. An irrevocable conclusion, then, is that our size distorts our understanding of Reality. Although we understand our finite minds are unable to perceive reality in toto, we dismiss the idea that we, in fact, may know NOTHING of True Reality. After all, we have our physical senses, and our ability to measure observable phenomenon.

We have 5 physical senses. In some ways, they are weak and “tiny” in relation to the cosmos. In other ways, they are powerful and large. Since scientists dismiss PSI powers, ESP, astral travel, and the like, scientific investigation relies upon the combination of the input from the senses and the deductions our rational faculty makes from that input. We know our senses may be fallible (e.g., seeing a mirage). We also know our ignorance causes us at times to to perceive inaccurately. Consequently, we sometimes conclude erroneously because of what we fail to perceive. Our ignorance also causes us to conclude wrongly based upon what we do perceive with more accuracy.

For the most part, the technology we use is only an extension of the senses we have. For examples, sonar is increased hearing. Analysis of microwaves and radar are vision widened across the electromagnetic spectrum. Our physical characteristics, then, place us in the same position vis-à-vis perception as the slug’s size places the slug in its perception of its cosmos. Yet, we see that the slug cannot perceive 2 of its dimensions. We believe, on the basis of not much at all, that we are different from the slug, because our cosmos has an up and down, and because we have a rational mind. This is ego. It is the same pride that once believed in the geocentric universe. Because we have the limitations we have, we, even with science fiction and other imaginative delights, do not currently know that which we do not know.

Which brings us to the flaw in scientific investigation. Science investigates observable phenomena. We pretend we can validate scientific deductions because they explain the universe as we see, hear, smell, taste and touch it. This is circular reasoning, and hence fails to prove anything. Because we can only see, hear, smell, taste and touch, we only prove those things that those limited senses tell us make sense to investigate and prove. This investigation of Truth is close-minded. We slugs have proven, via simple movement along all possible paths, that the world has but 2 dimensions.

Who knows what phenomena are not observable to the 5 senses? Who knows what phenomena are observed incorrectly or incompletely?

Imagine that the slug lives inside an enormous baking dish. A slug travels straight towards the side of the dish. Because it is a slug, and because objects in motion tend to stay in motion, when it reaches the side, it unwittingly travels up. When the slug initially starts to travel up, part of its body is still on the bottom of the dish and part is on the vertical side. Suddenly it has 3 dimensions, however briefly. Being a slug, it may not notice. Nor will gravity affect its slimy crawl in any noticeable way.

Once the slug is moving up the side, its world reverts to 2 dimensions. The slug does not realize that the up-and-down dimension has replaced the back-and-forth dimension. The slug is secure in its knowledge that its world is 2-dimensional: left and right, back and forth. Since the brief period of time in which the slug’s world had 3 dimensions is not a repeatable (and hence, verifiable) phenomenon, that observation of 3 dimensions is dismissed as a mistake in measurement or deduction.

Now imagine you are in a spaceship traveling towards a distant star. As you approach the star, at some point you enter the star’s gravity well. When you do, the dimension of back and forth in which you WERE traveling has now become your up-and-down dimension. Although to you it seems as if your journey is still along the same forward-and-back spatial dimension, you are now traveling up and down relative to your prior dimension of travel. You never noticed. Your senses are too flawed to distinguish the dimensional shift.

The point of these speculations is that we do not know what dimensions we do not perceive, nor is there any “real” spatial dimension to our senses. However, our senses tell us that there is.

This is the first Age in which we may find ways to overcome the "size" of our senses. One way (and it is important to stress that we must find infinite ways) of "re-sizing" our minds (since we cannot re-size our physical bodies nor our 5 senses) is to use linear (sometimes called matrix) algebra as an analogous framework for perception of Truth. Even, for example, Scriptures and Science can be "matricised", to reveal their relation, the vector of enlightenment you get by grouping one subset of the Scripture and Science of the matrix, the determinant permitting the inversion of the entire set of Scriptural and Scientific understandings to get a new matrix of understandings, the "eigenforce" of the truth lying along the multidimensional vector of the matrix, and the ways of combining other sets of vector matrices of Scripture and Science to achieve new perceptions of reality. I am using one such matrix herein to show how the stars fell from the heavens, both materially and spiritually.

This is a powerful analogy and tool. Matrices are what mathematicians and scientists have to use because the Cosmos is too vast and too inter-related to use simple one-line or one-curve mathematics.

Understanding Heisenberg's Principle on the quantum level led to the realization that observers on the macro level also unavoidably alter what they observe. Hence, we are limited in what we can know about anything, because learning one fact about that anything alters what used to be the reality of that anything into a new reality.

It also ALTERS THE OBSERVER.

Statistics has this thing called "losing a degree of freedom." Every constraint you place upon the object observed (e.g., It is going THIS fast) steals a freedom from you to make another statement about the object (e.g., It is located HERE). In statistics, the reason for the loss of the degree of freedom is analogous to Heisenberg's Principle, but has a different cause. Whatever you measure is known in statistics to be a sample of the entire reality. Because you cannot know whether a sample is reflective of the true Reality (e.g., SOMETIMES it goes THIS fast, instead), when you make an observation, you limit with what certainty you can generalize ALL of your conclusions about the sample to the whole Reality. That is, you increase the likelihood that all of your conclusions together are wrong.

Contained within statistics, is everything I am saying about our perception of the Cosmos. Everything we can see, every use of our senses, steals multiple degrees of freedom from us to be able to generalize what we "know" as being the True Nature of the Cosmos. We increase the probability that altogether our conclusions are wrong. The 4 dimensions we perceive may exist because we are tiny or large in relation to the Universe. Hence, physical size is one of the famous "rose-tinted spectacles." Who knows what non-electromagentic forces regularly exceed c?

Consequently, scientists believe gravity to be one of the 4 forces of the universe. In fact, it may not be a force under any understanding. It may merely be the "grid" that allows the plot of the 4 dimensions that we do perceive to exist and to relate to one another.

Everytime I turn around, I find 1 more indication that gravity is the original "ether" that both underpins and causes physical reality. By defining the relationship of the 4 dimensions, gravity makes the speed of light "c".

Perhaps, the first Unified Field Theory will treat gravity, not as a force in relation to the 3 forces, but as a forceless, active but non-reactive pre-existence that molds (curves) the dimensions; that, in fact, causes those dimensions to exist by creating matter and energy. It is ok by me to call that force other than gravity (Higgs field, perhaps). Even with the Big Bang theory, we come back to gravity, and maybe matter, pre-existing the cosmos. It pre-existed the laws of our cosmos.

We have thought we had invented the Science of Truth many times already. Every time, we found that how we looked at Truth was limited.

For the first time, the understandings of the rational faculty can blend and harmonize with the understandings of the heart (the spiritual or intuitive faculty). Heretofore, the spiritual faculty has proclaimed itself the sole bringing of Truth. However, as prophesied, in the Last Days, when the Order of Things passed away, the stars of religion fell from the heaven of understanding. New Luminaries, the scientists, soon sat upon the throne of Truth.

Man in all actions follows a pendulous motion. For too long he moves in one direction. Suddenly he reverses his movement, and then he goes too far in the other direction.

Consequently, the new Luminaries of science also quickly fell from the heavens of understanding. The Special Theory of Relativity was the greatest leap of Science since Newton. In but a few short years the heavy elements, existing on this planet solely because of supernova (literally, stars falling from the sky), were made to bring thermonuclear reactions (the power of the stars) to Earth (the stars fell to Earth in yet one more literal way). The first use of this power of heaven was to destroy great numbers of humans. The scientific path to Truth had gone too far on its pendulum swing away from the heart, and created weapons of unthinkable destruction.

Science was going to save us all. Science caused way more problems than it solved. The pendulum must swing back and stabilize. We must not lose Science the way we lost Religion.

We begin with the understanding that everything the 5 senses perceive is not just limited, which everyone grants, but maybe, an out-and-out lie. The scientific method, at this time, will recognize ONLY the reality that the 5 senses perceive. As much as I love the scientific method, I believe the future will demonstrate it to be a superstition as limited, and as damaging to progress, as the beliefs of our ancient ancestors, at which we now poke fun.

Due to a deliberate misconstruing of the story of Adam and Eve, women have been subjected for thousands of years. Religion, channeled down the wrong paths in its conceptual stages, has cost us much progress, welfare, peace and understanding. Science is now in its conceptual stages. One of the first major acts of Science was to use the stars that fell from the sky to annihilate masses of people. In part, this is a price we paid by subverting Religion at its conception. It is inconceivable to me that a society that had had women as full partners for these thousands of years could ever have degenerated to the point where use of nuclear weapons upon its own species was a sustainable concept.

What seeds is Science, in it infancy, now planting?

I believe it is the kind of thinking seen here about "other intelligences" that could be weed seeds, instead of fruitful seeds. We must "re-size" our minds.

 

[jon_pan]

wow...GREAT post owl3951. I agree 100% on everything you said.


but did you read the original question? jk, a little off topic thought, into philosphy science arts. but your main scientific points are:

-that life doesn't have to exist the way it exist on our planet,
-we're ignorant to our senses, and there's a lot more beyond them