Friam

So, Are We Alone?

Classic

List

Threaded

70 messages Options

1234

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: So, Are We Alone?

As to being the first, we've only been civilized, if you can call it that, for a mere 5,000 years - the working definition for that descriptive being the length of recorded history. Cripes, we've only existed as a unique species for ~20,000 year. At the rate we're going, I'd place even money on us no lasting another 20,000.

So, given this, and the fact that there has been evolved multicellular, animate life on the planet for the last ~500 million years, who can state with authority that we are the first "intelligent" specie to evolve?

Unless you don't believe in evolution... Oh wait, I guess we decided not to go there. Back to our main program.

Anyhow, 500 million years on a geological time scale is sufficient for subduction to have completely obliterated sizable portions of earthly real estate. Evidence of some unfortunate prior specie's ephemeral 20,000 year claim to having become civilized could well never be found by today's archaeologists.

This is not a new concept, several science fiction writers have written stories that transpire over geological time periods. Frederich Pohl, Larry Niven, and more recently, Michael Seimsen who wrote The Dig which addresses this very proposition. In his story, a hominid species rose to approximately iron-age levels of technology ~120 million years ago, before having been being wiped out in the Cretaceous era mass extinction. These unfortunate individuals had a rough go of it, what with all the dinosaur predators roaming around at the time (Sarah Palin would have *loved* this story, presuming she could have gotten past the 6,000 year issue). As a result of the relative hard times they were living in, these hominids did not expand to the point of becoming a global blight, unlike the current inhabitants. The did have art, though.

On a much broader scale, we have what: 200 billion galaxies that we can see, each with tens to hundreds of billions of potentially habitable planets? I have a sneaky suspicion we are not the first to have experienced "the quickening", universally speaking.

--Doug

On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

Gentle readers, as much as I like /.-like digressions, interesting humor (but not religious rants), has anyone anything to add to the idea that life origins may be bound to the era after Population II star formation?

If so, we may be among the first of these very young life forms, +/- a billion years or so.

-- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: So, Are We Alone?

In reply to this post by Sarbajit Roy (testing)

Dear Sarbajit,

I take your points, but with one codicil: The Muslim religion is also of eastern origin, and I suspect you will agree that the Islamic "Sunday School" teachings in today's fundamentalist Islamic countries are also somewhat problematic, for obvious reasons which we maybe don't want to dwell on here.

--Doug

On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Sarbajit Roy <[hidden email]> wrote:

Dear Doug

What is taught in Sunday School is the problem with the "Christian"
religion which for the most part seems based on gospels, unprovable
historical events and parables etc. The ancient Eastern religions
Dave mentioned don't have that problem insofar as their core beliefs
are concerned

For instance, my own religion's very ancient working principles can be
distilled into 4 or 5 sentences. I would really like to know where and
why you differ with me on them.

1) "GOD" (aka "Singularity"). Infinite, formless, beyond description,
ruling principle of existence. [Comment - In other words there is a
Unified Theory of Everything but "we" can never know it.]

2) "SALVATION". There is no salvation and no way to achieve it. All
life exists to be consumed. There is neither Heaven nor Hell nor
rebirth.

3) "WORSHIP". There is no scripture, revelation, creation, prophet,
priest or teacher to be revered. Worship consist of revering the
"inner light within" (i.e. enlightened conscience / intelligence)

4) "CULTS". There is no distinction. (All men are equal. Distinctions
like caste, race, creed, colour, gender, nationality etc. are
artificial. There is no need for priests, places of worship, long
sermons etc. "Man-worship" or "God-men" are abhorent to the faith and
denounced since there is no mediator between man and God)

5) "LIFE-FORMS" God / religion is not limited to "Man" alone, but
covers / permeates all "life"

Sarbajit

On 4/1/12, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:
> But, what was taught in Sunday school *was* taught as theology, which is a
> very large part of the whole problem of religion.
>
> And if these holders of bizarre fantasy beliefs can't take a little
> disparragement now and then, well, their beliefs can't be all that solid
> now, can they?
>
> -Doug
>
> Sent from Android.
> On Apr 1, 2012 8:15 AM, "Prof David West" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012, at 01:02 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
>>
>>
>> If you are a Mitt Romney-class Mormon, you may pass directly on to Kolub;
>> the issue of intelligent life is obviously of no meaning to you.
>>
>>
>> au contraire, asking if there is intelligent life elsewhere is a
>> meaningless question only because, if you are a "Mitt Romney-class
>> Mormon,"
>> you 'know' there is intelligent life elsewhere - a large, but unknown,
>> number of populated worlds, and that many have come and gone before ours
>> and many will come to be after ours is long gone.
>>
>> There is speculation on the physical form of the life on those other
>> worlds - as the only requirement to be 'created in God's image' is not
>> physical - it is the 'spirito-intellect something' ( a concept very much
>> like purusa in Vedic - and later Buddhist - philosophy) that is
>> fundamental
>> for 'godly imageness.'
>>
>> When disparaging others' beliefs, or rejecting those of our own
>> childhood/upbringing, one should always recognize that what is taught in
>> 'Sunday School' is not theology.
>>
>> dave west
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>
>

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

Sarbajit Roy (testing)

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Dear Doug,

(And being mindful that some/most people on this list don't want to be
inflicted with religious rants - so we can take this offlist hereafter
?? ).

On the codicil,

I can't agree that Islam is an Eastern Religion. It is as much a
Western religion as Judaism or Christianity is. All Western religions
are now proselytising religions which are geared to impose their will,
their leaders and prophets on the unwilling. Nonetheless, as per me,
Judaism is the most Eastern of these 3 religions and my own
religionists would straightway agree (generally) with the first 4 of
Judaism's principles as set down by, say, Maimonides.

ie. to say

1. The existence of God
2. God's unity
3. God's spirituality and incorporeality
4. God's eternity

About 95% of my co-religionists would also agree with his 5th principle

5. God alone should be the object of worship

Unfortunately we cannot agree with any of the other 8 proselytising
Judaic principles. or 8 of the 10 Commandments of Christianity or 4 of
the 5 Pillars of Islam which are being collectively thrust on the East
by imperialist means for economic / political objectives.

Sarbajit

On 4/2/12, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dear Sarbajit,
>
> I take your points, but with one codicil: The Muslim religion is also of
> eastern origin, and I suspect you will agree that the Islamic "Sunday
> School" teachings in today's fundamentalist Islamic countries are also
> somewhat problematic, for obvious reasons which we maybe don't want to
> dwell on here.
>
> --Doug
>
> On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Sarbajit Roy <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Dear Doug
>>
>> What is taught in Sunday School is the problem with the "Christian"
>> religion which for the most part seems based on gospels, unprovable
>> historical events and parables etc. The ancient Eastern religions
>> Dave mentioned don't have that problem insofar as their core beliefs
>> are concerned
>>
>> For instance, my own religion's very ancient working principles can be
>> distilled into 4 or 5 sentences. I would really like to know where and
>> why you differ with me on them.
>>
>> 1) "GOD" (aka "Singularity"). Infinite, formless, beyond description,
>> ruling principle of existence. [Comment - In other words there is a
>> Unified Theory of Everything but "we" can never know it.]
>>
>> 2) "SALVATION". There is no salvation and no way to achieve it. All
>> life exists to be consumed. There is neither Heaven nor Hell nor
>> rebirth.
>>
>> 3) "WORSHIP". There is no scripture, revelation, creation, prophet,
>> priest or teacher to be revered. Worship consist of revering the
>> "inner light within" (i.e. enlightened conscience / intelligence)
>>
>> 4) "CULTS". There is no distinction. (All men are equal. Distinctions
>> like caste, race, creed, colour, gender, nationality etc. are
>> artificial. There is no need for priests, places of worship, long
>> sermons etc. "Man-worship" or "God-men" are abhorent to the faith and
>> denounced since there is no mediator between man and God)
>>
>> 5) "LIFE-FORMS" God / religion is not limited to "Man" alone, but
>> covers / permeates all "life"
>>
>> Sarbajit
>>

Owen Densmore

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Administrator

In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2

Doug: I'm not sure if we're on the same page. Let me be as simple as possible.

Because I had earlier belonged to the Sagan school of Billions being Important, I had assumed the possibility of life was pretty much spread over the era of galaxy formation.

But after being a bit more analytic, it occurred to me that one could reduce one of the billions .. the percent of the life of the universe w/in life formation might occur .. by a considerable amount.

What I found interesting was that (considering star generations of import) that all life may be starting at about the same time .. w/in a billion or two years of each other.

Does that make sense? You keep blinding me with science and billions, about which I am already aware. I'm interested in a different phenomenon .. adding stellar evolution (and why would you presume I don't understand evolution, of all things) and using that to be a bit more intelligent about boundary conditions.

I think the answer is: You don't care about trimming the era of life formation from 12BY say, to 2-4BY. Right?

-- Owen

On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

As to being the first, we've only been civilized, if you can call it that, for a mere 5,000 years - the working definition for that descriptive being the length of recorded history. Cripes, we've only existed as a unique species for ~20,000 year. At the rate we're going, I'd place even money on us no lasting another 20,000.

So, given this, and the fact that there has been evolved multicellular, animate life on the planet for the last ~500 million years, who can state with authority that we are the first "intelligent" specie to evolve?

Unless you don't believe in evolution... Oh wait, I guess we decided not to go there. Back to our main program.

Anyhow, 500 million years on a geological time scale is sufficient for subduction to have completely obliterated sizable portions of earthly real estate. Evidence of some unfortunate prior specie's ephemeral 20,000 year claim to having become civilized could well never be found by today's archaeologists.

This is not a new concept, several science fiction writers have written stories that transpire over geological time periods. Frederich Pohl, Larry Niven, and more recently, Michael Seimsen who wrote The Dig which addresses this very proposition. In his story, a hominid species rose to approximately iron-age levels of technology ~120 million years ago, before having been being wiped out in the Cretaceous era mass extinction. These unfortunate individuals had a rough go of it, what with all the dinosaur predators roaming around at the time (Sarah Palin would have *loved* this story, presuming she could have gotten past the 6,000 year issue). As a result of the relative hard times they were living in, these hominids did not expand to the point of becoming a global blight, unlike the current inhabitants. The did have art, though.

On a much broader scale, we have what: 200 billion galaxies that we can see, each with tens to hundreds of billions of potentially habitable planets? I have a sneaky suspicion we are not the first to have experienced "the quickening", universally speaking.

--Doug

On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

Gentle readers, as much as I like /.-like digressions, interesting humor (but not religious rants), has anyone anything to add to the idea that life origins may be bound to the era after Population II star formation?

If so, we may be among the first of these very young life forms, +/- a billion years or so.

-- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

<a href="tel:505-455-7333" value="+15054557333" target="_blank">505-455-7333 - Office
<a href="tel:505-670-8195" value="+15056708195" target="_blank">505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Steve Smith

Re: So, Are We Alone?

In reply to this post by Sarbajit Roy (testing)

I agree with Nick's implied rules of engagement. Gratuitous contempt
and nastiness are about the only things I find hard to remedy with
liberal use of my <delete> or my ability to skim an e-mail and go on (by
the time I realize I want to disregard same, I have been infected by it).

My father used to say: "I don't talk religion or politics with
anyone... with anyone!" . I don't go that far, but I admit that once
someone degenerates into proselytizing to me (actively or as passively
as *assuming* that I share their religious or political beliefs) I am at
least mildly offended (irritated?).

I am, however, always interested in peoples experiences and reasoned
analysis of those experiences, including religious and political, though
I'd prefer to hear about "spiritual" and "intellectual" experiences and
considerations, I guess.

- Steve

> I don't remember anybody complaining about discussions of religion, per se.
> I do remember a request that contempt or gratuitous nastiness not be a part
> of such a discussion I would also urge everybody to bear in mind that this
> is, after all, a list of people loosely self identified as
> "complexiticists". But that hardly excludes any topic.
>
> Nick
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
> Of Sarbajit Roy
> Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 8:51 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] So, *Are* We Alone?
>
> Dear Doug,
>
> (And being mindful that some/most people on this list don't want to be
> inflicted with religious rants - so we can take this offlist hereafter ?? ).
>
> On the codicil,
>
> I can't agree that Islam is an Eastern Religion. It is as much a Western
> religion as Judaism or Christianity is. All Western religions are now
> proselytising religions which are geared to impose their will, their leaders
> and prophets on the unwilling. Nonetheless, as per me, Judaism is the most
> Eastern of these 3 religions and my own religionists would straightway agree
> (generally) with the first 4 of Judaism's principles as set down by, say,
> Maimonides.
>
> ie. to say
>
> 1. The existence of God
> 2. God's unity
> 3. God's spirituality and incorporeality 4. God's eternity
>
> About 95% of my co-religionists would also agree with his 5th principle
>
> 5. God alone should be the object of worship
>
> Unfortunately we cannot agree with any of the other 8 proselytising Judaic
> principles. or 8 of the 10 Commandments of Christianity or 4 of the 5
> Pillars of Islam which are being collectively thrust on the East by
> imperialist means for economic / political objectives.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On 4/2/12, Douglas Roberts<[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Dear Sarbajit,
>>
>> I take your points, but with one codicil: The Muslim religion is also
>> of eastern origin, and I suspect you will agree that the Islamic
>> "Sunday School" teachings in today's fundamentalist Islamic countries
>> are also somewhat problematic, for obvious reasons which we maybe
>> don't want to dwell on here.
>>
>> --Doug
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Sarbajit Roy<[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Doug
>>>
>>> What is taught in Sunday School is the problem with the "Christian"
>>> religion which for the most part seems based on gospels, unprovable
>>> historical events and parables etc. The ancient Eastern religions
>>> Dave mentioned don't have that problem insofar as their core beliefs
>>> are concerned
>>>
>>> For instance, my own religion's very ancient working principles can
>>> be distilled into 4 or 5 sentences. I would really like to know where
>>> and why you differ with me on them.
>>>
>>> 1) "GOD" (aka "Singularity"). Infinite, formless, beyond description,
>>> ruling principle of existence. [Comment - In other words there is a
>>> Unified Theory of Everything but "we" can never know it.]
>>>
>>> 2) "SALVATION". There is no salvation and no way to achieve it. All
>>> life exists to be consumed. There is neither Heaven nor Hell nor
>>> rebirth.
>>>
>>> 3) "WORSHIP". There is no scripture, revelation, creation, prophet,
>>> priest or teacher to be revered. Worship consist of revering the
>>> "inner light within" (i.e. enlightened conscience / intelligence)
>>>
>>> 4) "CULTS". There is no distinction. (All men are equal. Distinctions
>>> like caste, race, creed, colour, gender, nationality etc. are
>>> artificial. There is no need for priests, places of worship, long
>>> sermons etc. "Man-worship" or "God-men" are abhorent to the faith and
>>> denounced since there is no mediator between man and God)
>>>
>>> 5) "LIFE-FORMS" God / religion is not limited to "Man" alone, but
>>> covers / permeates all "life"
>>>
>>> Sarbajit
>>>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives,
> unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Carl Tollander

Re: So, Are We Alone?

In reply to this post by Sarbajit Roy (testing)

Nick, well, there is the issue of being on-topic or not. I think, it's
on topic, insofar as folks thinking about how, when, and at what pace
"advanced" civilizations might converse might have religious views that
put a charge on how they are able to think about, say, what "advanced",
science, mathematics might mean. However, I think there's a
responsibility to talk in terms of how that might play out, rather than
asserting religious axioms.

I understand, Owen, that I'm talking from the assumption that the
civilizations might currently exist and be talking past each other, or
choosing to not converse at all, and you are talking from the standpoint
of whether they might not exist yet.

On 4/1/12 9:31 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

Nick Thompson

Re: So, Are We Alone?

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

Oh. Steve. I would infinitely prefer to argue with a catholic about
transubstantiation than with a spiritualist. N

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Steve Smith
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 10:10 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] So, *Are* We Alone?

I agree with Nick's implied rules of engagement. Gratuitous contempt and
nastiness are about the only things I find hard to remedy with liberal use
of my <delete> or my ability to skim an e-mail and go on (by the time I
realize I want to disregard same, I have been infected by it).

My father used to say: "I don't talk religion or politics with
anyone... with anyone!" . I don't go that far, but I admit that once
someone degenerates into proselytizing to me (actively or as passively as
*assuming* that I share their religious or political beliefs) I am at least
mildly offended (irritated?).

I am, however, always interested in peoples experiences and reasoned
analysis of those experiences, including religious and political, though I'd
prefer to hear about "spiritual" and "intellectual" experiences and
considerations, I guess.

- Steve
> I don't remember anybody complaining about discussions of religion, per
se.

> I do remember a request that contempt or gratuitous nastiness not be a
> part of such a discussion I would also urge everybody to bear in mind
> that this is, after all, a list of people loosely self identified as
> "complexiticists". But that hardly excludes any topic.
>
> Nick
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On
> Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy
> Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 8:51 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] So, *Are* We Alone?
>
> Dear Doug,
>
> (And being mindful that some/most people on this list don't want to be
> inflicted with religious rants - so we can take this offlist hereafter ??

>
> On the codicil,
>
> I can't agree that Islam is an Eastern Religion. It is as much a
> Western religion as Judaism or Christianity is. All Western religions
> are now proselytising religions which are geared to impose their will,
> their leaders and prophets on the unwilling. Nonetheless, as per me,
> Judaism is the most Eastern of these 3 religions and my own
> religionists would straightway agree
> (generally) with the first 4 of Judaism's principles as set down by,
> say, Maimonides.
>
> ie. to say
>
> 1. The existence of God
> 2. God's unity
> 3. God's spirituality and incorporeality 4. God's eternity
>
> About 95% of my co-religionists would also agree with his 5th
> principle
>
> 5. God alone should be the object of worship
>
> Unfortunately we cannot agree with any of the other 8 proselytising
> Judaic principles. or 8 of the 10 Commandments of Christianity or 4 of
> the 5 Pillars of Islam which are being collectively thrust on the East
> by imperialist means for economic / political objectives.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On 4/2/12, Douglas Roberts<[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Dear Sarbajit,
>>
>> I take your points, but with one codicil: The Muslim religion is
>> also of eastern origin, and I suspect you will agree that the
>> Islamic "Sunday School" teachings in today's fundamentalist Islamic
>> countries are also somewhat problematic, for obvious reasons which we
>> maybe don't want to dwell on here.
>>
>> --Doug
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Sarbajit Roy<[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Doug
>>>
>>> What is taught in Sunday School is the problem with the "Christian"
>>> religion which for the most part seems based on gospels, unprovable
>>> historical events and parables etc. The ancient Eastern religions
>>> Dave mentioned don't have that problem insofar as their core beliefs
>>> are concerned
>>>
>>> For instance, my own religion's very ancient working principles can
>>> be distilled into 4 or 5 sentences. I would really like to know
>>> where and why you differ with me on them.
>>>
>>> 1) "GOD" (aka "Singularity"). Infinite, formless, beyond
>>> description, ruling principle of existence. [Comment - In other
>>> words there is a Unified Theory of Everything but "we" can never
>>> know it.]
>>>
>>> 2) "SALVATION". There is no salvation and no way to achieve it. All
>>> life exists to be consumed. There is neither Heaven nor Hell nor
>>> rebirth.
>>>
>>> 3) "WORSHIP". There is no scripture, revelation, creation, prophet,
>>> priest or teacher to be revered. Worship consist of revering the
>>> "inner light within" (i.e. enlightened conscience / intelligence)
>>>
>>> 4) "CULTS". There is no distinction. (All men are equal.
>>> Distinctions like caste, race, creed, colour, gender, nationality
>>> etc. are artificial. There is no need for priests, places of
>>> worship, long sermons etc. "Man-worship" or "God-men" are abhorent
>>> to the faith and denounced since there is no mediator between man
>>> and God)
>>>
>>> 5) "LIFE-FORMS" God / religion is not limited to "Man" alone, but
>>> covers / permeates all "life"
>>>
>>> Sarbajit
>>>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe
> at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
> http://www.friam.org
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe
> at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
> http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives,
unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Nick Thompson

Re: So, Are We Alone?

In reply to this post by Carl Tollander

Yes, which means we now have two new (well, new to me, anyway) answers to
the revised thread question: "Why haven't they gotten in touch?"

Nick

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Carl Tollander
Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 10:16 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] So, *Are* We Alone?

Nick, well, there is the issue of being on-topic or not. I think, it's
on topic, insofar as folks thinking about how, when, and at what pace
"advanced" civilizations might converse might have religious views that put
a charge on how they are able to think about, say, what "advanced",
science, mathematics might mean. However, I think there's a
responsibility to talk in terms of how that might play out, rather than
asserting religious axioms.

I understand, Owen, that I'm talking from the assumption that the
civilizations might currently exist and be talking past each other, or
choosing to not converse at all, and you are talking from the standpoint of
whether they might not exist yet.

On 4/1/12 9:31 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> I don't remember anybody complaining about discussions of religion, per
se.

Tom Carter

Re: So, Are We Alone?

In reply to this post by Owen Densmore

Owen -

Can't remember if I've recommended this here in the past . . . but apropos various of these topics is "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" by Barrow and Tipler. It's getting a bit old now (1988), but I think still worth the read . . . they cover tons of fascinating stuff . . . (and are likely to annoy more than a few :-)

http://www.amazon.com/Anthropic-Cosmological-Principle-Oxford-Paperbacks/dp/0192821474

Thanks . . .

tom

On Apr 1, 2012, at 8:25 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:

> Doug: I'm not sure if we're on the same page. Let me be as simple as possible.
>
> Because I had earlier belonged to the Sagan school of Billions being Important, I had assumed the possibility of life was pretty much spread over the era of galaxy formation.
>
> But after being a bit more analytic, it occurred to me that one could reduce one of the billions .. the percent of the life of the universe w/in life formation might occur .. by a considerable amount.
>
> What I found interesting was that (considering star generations of import) that all life may be starting at about the same time .. w/in a billion or two years of each other.
>
> Does that make sense? You keep blinding me with science and billions, about which I am already aware. I'm interested in a different phenomenon .. adding stellar evolution (and why would you presume I don't understand evolution, of all things) and using that to be a bit more intelligent about boundary conditions.
>
> I think the answer is: You don't care about trimming the era of life formation from 12BY say, to 2-4BY. Right?
>
> -- Owen
>
> On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:
> As to being the first, we've only been civilized, if you can call it that, for a mere 5,000 years - the working definition for that descriptive being the length of recorded history. Cripes, we've only existed as a unique species for ~20,000 year. At the rate we're going, I'd place even money on us no lasting another 20,000.
>
> So, given this, and the fact that there has been evolved multicellular, animate life on the planet for the last ~500 million years, who can state with authority that we are the first "intelligent" specie to evolve?
>
> Unless you don't believe in evolution... Oh wait, I guess we decided not to go there. Back to our main program.
>
> Anyhow, 500 million years on a geological time scale is sufficient for subduction to have completely obliterated sizable portions of earthly real estate. Evidence of some unfortunate prior specie's ephemeral 20,000 year claim to having become civilized could well never be found by today's archaeologists.
>
> This is not a new concept, several science fiction writers have written stories that transpire over geological time periods. Frederich Pohl, Larry Niven, and more recently, Michael Seimsen who wrote The Dig which addresses this very proposition. In his story, a hominid species rose to approximately iron-age levels of technology ~120 million years ago, before having been being wiped out in the Cretaceous era mass extinction. These unfortunate individuals had a rough go of it, what with all the dinosaur predators roaming around at the time (Sarah Palin would have *loved* this story, presuming she could have gotten past the 6,000 year issue). As a result of the relative hard times they were living in, these hominids did not expand to the point of becoming a global blight, unlike the current inhabitants. The did have art, though.
>
> On a much broader scale, we have what: 200 billion galaxies that we can see, each with tens to hundreds of billions of potentially habitable planets? I have a sneaky suspicion we are not the first to have experienced "the quickening", universally speaking.
>
> --Doug
>
> On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Gentle readers, as much as I like /.-like digressions, interesting humor (but not religious rants), has anyone anything to add to the idea that life origins may be bound to the era after Population II star formation?
>
> If so, we may be among the first of these very young life forms, +/- a billion years or so.
>
> -- Owen
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
>
> --
> Doug Roberts
> [hidden email]
> [hidden email]
> http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins
>
> 505-455-7333 - Office
> 505-670-8195 - Cell
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Prof David West

Re: So, Are We Alone?

What I think I have read in this thread, so far:

1. There are tons of potential homes for 'intelligent life'
2. These potential homes have come to be only 'recently' - perhaps too
recently for them to have lived up to their potential.
3. Our only example of success is, at best (and only if some of the
semaphore signals using mirrors and sunlight at places like Chaco
managed to hit open sky and leave the planet) a couple of thousand years
old - a mere blink even in the foreshortened window of type two stars.
4. The probability of two or more successes overlapping in time while
simultaneously being within communication / observation (SETI or
otherwise) distance starts to become extremely small.
5. Successes that meet the criteria of #4 might not recognize each other
because they are mutually alien.

It seems to me that #5 is the real key. When it comes to recognizing
"intelligence" the Anthropomorphic Principle is not only strong - it
approaches absolute.

davew

On Sun, Apr 1, 2012, at 11:41 PM, Tom Carter wrote:

> Owen -
>
> Can't remember if I've recommended this here in the past . . . but
> apropos various of these topics is "The Anthropic Cosmological
> Principle" by Barrow and Tipler. It's getting a bit old now (1988),
> but I think still worth the read . . . they cover tons of fascinating
> stuff . . . (and are likely to annoy more than a few :-)
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Anthropic-Cosmological-Principle-Oxford-Paperbacks/dp/0192821474
>
> Thanks . . .
>
> tom
>
> On Apr 1, 2012, at 8:25 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:
>
> > Doug: I'm not sure if we're on the same page. Let me be as simple as possible.
> >
> > Because I had earlier belonged to the Sagan school of Billions being Important, I had assumed the possibility of life was pretty much spread over the era of galaxy formation.
> >
> > But after being a bit more analytic, it occurred to me that one could reduce one of the billions .. the percent of the life of the universe w/in life formation might occur .. by a considerable amount.
> >
> > What I found interesting was that (considering star generations of import) that all life may be starting at about the same time .. w/in a billion or two years of each other.
> >
> > Does that make sense? You keep blinding me with science and billions, about which I am already aware. I'm interested in a different phenomenon .. adding stellar evolution (and why would you presume I don't understand evolution, of all things) and using that to be a bit more intelligent about boundary conditions.
> >
> > I think the answer is: You don't care about trimming the era of life formation from 12BY say, to 2-4BY. Right?
> >
> > -- Owen
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > As to being the first, we've only been civilized, if you can call it that, for a mere 5,000 years - the working definition for that descriptive being the length of recorded history. Cripes, we've only existed as a unique species for ~20,000 year. At the rate we're going, I'd place even money on us no lasting another 20,000.
> >
> > So, given this, and the fact that there has been evolved multicellular, animate life on the planet for the last ~500 million years, who can state with authority that we are the first "intelligent" specie to evolve?
> >
> > Unless you don't believe in evolution... Oh wait, I guess we decided not to go there. Back to our main program.
> >
> > Anyhow, 500 million years on a geological time scale is sufficient for subduction to have completely obliterated sizable portions of earthly real estate. Evidence of some unfortunate prior specie's ephemeral 20,000 year claim to having become civilized could well never be found by today's archaeologists.
> >
> > This is not a new concept, several science fiction writers have written stories that transpire over geological time periods. Frederich Pohl, Larry Niven, and more recently, Michael Seimsen who wrote The Dig which addresses this very proposition. In his story, a hominid species rose to approximately iron-age levels of technology ~120 million years ago, before having been being wiped out in the Cretaceous era mass extinction. These unfortunate individuals had a rough go of it, what with all the dinosaur predators roaming around at the time (Sarah Palin would have *loved* this story, presuming she could have gotten past the 6,000 year issue). As a result of the relative hard times they were living in, these hominids did not expand to the point of becoming a global blight, unlike the current inhabitants. The did have art, though.
> >
> > On a much broader scale, we have what: 200 billion galaxies that we can see, each with tens to hundreds of billions of potentially habitable planets? I have a sneaky suspicion we are not the first to have experienced "the quickening", universally speaking.
> >
> > --Doug
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Gentle readers, as much as I like /.-like digressions, interesting humor (but not religious rants), has anyone anything to add to the idea that life origins may be bound to the era after Population II star formation?
> >
> > If so, we may be among the first of these very young life forms, +/- a billion years or so.
> >
> > -- Owen
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Doug Roberts
> > [hidden email]
> > [hidden email]
> > http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins
> >
> > 505-455-7333 - Office
> > 505-670-8195 - Cell
> >
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: So, Are We Alone?

In reply to this post by Owen Densmore

Ok, after a night's sleep I can think about addressing your comments, Owen.

We appear to differ on the relevance of the scale of time since the big bang (presuming you believe in the big bang). The point I was trying to make was that human evolution occurred during a cosmological eye-blink of time, and "civilization" has lasted for even less than that.

During the period since the big bang, cosmology indicates that opportunities for water-life sustaining environments elsewhere in the universe have existed for billions of years prior to the present. Even on earth, there has been a ~500 million year window that is proven to have been capable of sustaining life, with no proof that Homo Sap. is the first intelligent life to have evolved here. So I therefore immediately reject your seeming assumption that "all life in the universe started at the same time" as not having sufficient basis.

Also, considering that red dwarf stars are very long-lived, it is possible that life could have evolved on a water-life-friendly planet circling one of those billions of years before even single-celled life had emerged on Earth.

One additional note related to this from the following article: h<a href="ttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2123974/IBM-building-powerful-history--hopes-unravel-origin-universe.html">ttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2123974/IBM-building-powerful-history--hopes-unravel-origin-universe.html

"The SKA’s 15m-dishes, which will detect electromagnetic radiation emitted by objects in space, will be the most sensitive ever built - able to detect an airport radar on a planet 50 light years away."

Pretty impressive, yet when you consider that the radius of the observable universe is on the order of 45.7 billion light years it becomes obvious that we have no way of detecting any indicators of familiar 21st century earth-like technology usage other than in our immediate next-door stellar neighborhood.

Summarizing, it is the issue of scale, both spatial and temporal that leads me to believe that your opinion of us perhaps being the first to the party is not defensible.

As to stellar evolution, note that I only mentioned red dwarf stars above. But taking other main sequence starts into account only increases the potential for life. Even if you wish to preclude all but Sol-class main sequence stars, they have a life span of 10 billion years, which allows for plenty of evolution opportunities that could have occurred before we swaggered onto the scene.

As to what period of time since the big bang would I be comfortable trimming down for consideration of when life could have evolved, anywhere: I have absolutely no idea. I suspect very few people do.

--Doug

On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 9:25 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

Doug: I'm not sure if we're on the same page. Let me be as simple as possible.

Because I had earlier belonged to the Sagan school of Billions being Important, I had assumed the possibility of life was pretty much spread over the era of galaxy formation.

But after being a bit more analytic, it occurred to me that one could reduce one of the billions .. the percent of the life of the universe w/in life formation might occur .. by a considerable amount.

What I found interesting was that (considering star generations of import) that all life may be starting at about the same time .. w/in a billion or two years of each other.

Does that make sense? You keep blinding me with science and billions, about which I am already aware. I'm interested in a different phenomenon .. adding stellar evolution (and why would you presume I don't understand evolution, of all things) and using that to be a bit more intelligent about boundary conditions.

I think the answer is: You don't care about trimming the era of life formation from 12BY say, to 2-4BY. Right?

-- Owen

On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

As to being the first, we've only been civilized, if you can call it that, for a mere 5,000 years - the working definition for that descriptive being the length of recorded history. Cripes, we've only existed as a unique species for ~20,000 year. At the rate we're going, I'd place even money on us no lasting another 20,000.

So, given this, and the fact that there has been evolved multicellular, animate life on the planet for the last ~500 million years, who can state with authority that we are the first "intelligent" specie to evolve?

Unless you don't believe in evolution... Oh wait, I guess we decided not to go there. Back to our main program.

Anyhow, 500 million years on a geological time scale is sufficient for subduction to have completely obliterated sizable portions of earthly real estate. Evidence of some unfortunate prior specie's ephemeral 20,000 year claim to having become civilized could well never be found by today's archaeologists.

This is not a new concept, several science fiction writers have written stories that transpire over geological time periods. Frederich Pohl, Larry Niven, and more recently, Michael Seimsen who wrote The Dig which addresses this very proposition. In his story, a hominid species rose to approximately iron-age levels of technology ~120 million years ago, before having been being wiped out in the Cretaceous era mass extinction. These unfortunate individuals had a rough go of it, what with all the dinosaur predators roaming around at the time (Sarah Palin would have *loved* this story, presuming she could have gotten past the 6,000 year issue). As a result of the relative hard times they were living in, these hominids did not expand to the point of becoming a global blight, unlike the current inhabitants. The did have art, though.

On a much broader scale, we have what: 200 billion galaxies that we can see, each with tens to hundreds of billions of potentially habitable planets? I have a sneaky suspicion we are not the first to have experienced "the quickening", universally speaking.

--Doug

On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

Gentle readers, as much as I like /.-like digressions, interesting humor (but not religious rants), has anyone anything to add to the idea that life origins may be bound to the era after Population II star formation?

If so, we may be among the first of these very young life forms, +/- a billion years or so.

-- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

<a href="tel:505-455-7333" value="+15054557333" target="_blank">505-455-7333 - Office
<a href="tel:505-670-8195" value="+15056708195" target="_blank">505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

Owen Densmore

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Administrator

Thank you .. very clear.

Here's the question I haven't been able to find an answer to, and maybe you have a pointer: when did the Population I stars begin formation and what has been their relative population since that time?

If we think Pop III and II stars ended up in supernovas relatively early .. say at the 4BY point, then I'd agree that we'd have most of the 14BY since the big bang at our disposal for life formation.

But if that isn't the case, and Pop I stars didn't appear in interesting numbers until much later, 8BY say, then my initial surprise holds.

I do want to be clear this is not a religious thing, that I do accept the big bang and evolution and that I am not some sort of fundamentalist. (I only say this because you've asked if I believe in both the big bang and evolution and I found that odd.) I *certainly* do not have reason to believe we are the first to the party as you mention below!

I'm just interested in putting a bit more structure on my initially naive picture of when life may have started, thus my interest in the metal-rich stars, and their relative population over the roughly 14BY of the big bang.

-- Owen

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

Ok, after a night's sleep I can think about addressing your comments, Owen.

We appear to differ on the relevance of the scale of time since the big bang (presuming you believe in the big bang). The point I was trying to make was that human evolution occurred during a cosmological eye-blink of time, and "civilization" has lasted for even less than that.

During the period since the big bang, cosmology indicates that opportunities for water-life sustaining environments elsewhere in the universe have existed for billions of years prior to the present. Even on earth, there has been a ~500 million year window that is proven to have been capable of sustaining life, with no proof that Homo Sap. is the first intelligent life to have evolved here. So I therefore immediately reject your seeming assumption that "all life in the universe started at the same time" as not having sufficient basis.

Also, considering that red dwarf stars are very long-lived, it is possible that life could have evolved on a water-life-friendly planet circling one of those billions of years before even single-celled life had emerged on Earth.

One additional note related to this from the following article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2123974/IBM-building-powerful-history--hopes-unravel-origin-universe.html

"The SKA’s 15m-dishes, which will detect electromagnetic radiation emitted by objects in space, will be the most sensitive ever built - able to detect an airport radar on a planet 50 light years away."

Pretty impressive, yet when you consider that the radius of the observable universe is on the order of 45.7 billion light years it becomes obvious that we have no way of detecting any indicators of familiar 21st century earth-like technology usage other than in our immediate next-door stellar neighborhood.

Summarizing, it is the issue of scale, both spatial and temporal that leads me to believe that your opinion of us perhaps being the first to the party is not defensible.

As to stellar evolution, note that I only mentioned red dwarf stars above. But taking other main sequence starts into account only increases the potential for life. Even if you wish to preclude all but Sol-class main sequence stars, they have a life span of 10 billion years, which allows for plenty of evolution opportunities that could have occurred before we swaggered onto the scene.

As to what period of time since the big bang would I be comfortable trimming down for consideration of when life could have evolved, anywhere: I have absolutely no idea. I suspect very few people do.

--Doug

On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 9:25 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

Doug: I'm not sure if we're on the same page. Let me be as simple as possible.

Because I had earlier belonged to the Sagan school of Billions being Important, I had assumed the possibility of life was pretty much spread over the era of galaxy formation.

But after being a bit more analytic, it occurred to me that one could reduce one of the billions .. the percent of the life of the universe w/in life formation might occur .. by a considerable amount.

What I found interesting was that (considering star generations of import) that all life may be starting at about the same time .. w/in a billion or two years of each other.

Does that make sense? You keep blinding me with science and billions, about which I am already aware. I'm interested in a different phenomenon .. adding stellar evolution (and why would you presume I don't understand evolution, of all things) and using that to be a bit more intelligent about boundary conditions.

I think the answer is: You don't care about trimming the era of life formation from 12BY say, to 2-4BY. Right?

-- Owen

On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

As to being the first, we've only been civilized, if you can call it that, for a mere 5,000 years - the working definition for that descriptive being the length of recorded history. Cripes, we've only existed as a unique species for ~20,000 year. At the rate we're going, I'd place even money on us no lasting another 20,000.

So, given this, and the fact that there has been evolved multicellular, animate life on the planet for the last ~500 million years, who can state with authority that we are the first "intelligent" specie to evolve?

Unless you don't believe in evolution... Oh wait, I guess we decided not to go there. Back to our main program.

Anyhow, 500 million years on a geological time scale is sufficient for subduction to have completely obliterated sizable portions of earthly real estate. Evidence of some unfortunate prior specie's ephemeral 20,000 year claim to having become civilized could well never be found by today's archaeologists.

This is not a new concept, several science fiction writers have written stories that transpire over geological time periods. Frederich Pohl, Larry Niven, and more recently, Michael Seimsen who wrote The Dig which addresses this very proposition. In his story, a hominid species rose to approximately iron-age levels of technology ~120 million years ago, before having been being wiped out in the Cretaceous era mass extinction. These unfortunate individuals had a rough go of it, what with all the dinosaur predators roaming around at the time (Sarah Palin would have *loved* this story, presuming she could have gotten past the 6,000 year issue). As a result of the relative hard times they were living in, these hominids did not expand to the point of becoming a global blight, unlike the current inhabitants. The did have art, though.

On a much broader scale, we have what: 200 billion galaxies that we can see, each with tens to hundreds of billions of potentially habitable planets? I have a sneaky suspicion we are not the first to have experienced "the quickening", universally speaking.

--Doug

On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

Gentle readers, as much as I like /.-like digressions, interesting humor (but not religious rants), has anyone anything to add to the idea that life origins may be bound to the era after Population II star formation?

If so, we may be among the first of these very young life forms, +/- a billion years or so.

-- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

<a href="tel:505-455-7333" value="+15054557333" target="_blank">505-455-7333 - Office
<a href="tel:505-670-8195" value="+15056708195" target="_blank">505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

<a href="tel:505-455-7333" value="+15054557333" target="_blank">505-455-7333 - Office
<a href="tel:505-670-8195" value="+15056708195" target="_blank">505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Owen,

As that last link shows, we really don't know everything there is to know about Population III stars. It was not expected that planets would be found orbiting one, much less one that was 13 billion years old and only 375 light-years away.

As to when did Population-II and I stars form, it was not a straight sequence of III->II->I . Happenstance, as much as anything appears to have dictated when and where the stellar aggregation process resulted in stars of increased metallicity. It is generally true that Pop-I stars are the youngest, but they didn't all form at the same time. I have no idea what the age bracket & error bars for them are.

And as to the religion thing: I've learned that you really never do know who you are talking to, and what that other person's biases are, so usually check. I have also learned that there are some striking regional characteristics in this regard. For example, I will never initiate a conversation with someone from the Carolinas on the topic of, say, evolution unless I know the person fairly well. It is downright depressing how many bible-thumping, God fearing, creationist Christian fundamentalists there are in North Carolina or Virginia, two places I travel to fairly often. It makes it extremely difficult to have rational, intelligent, or even moderately pleasant conversations. A group of my coworkers left LANL in 2005 at about the same time I did, but they all went to Blacksburg, VA. It took a major cultural adjustment for some of them to come to grips with the redneck, ignorant, intolerant, bible-literalist culture that is predominant once you get more than 20 miles away from Virginia Tech in any direction.

Finally, as you know, I am not a physicist, or cosmologist of any kind. My degrees are in engineering & computer science. I've been informally studying cosmology for as long as I can remember, but I am not a cosmologist. Regardless, I have had the privilege of having had numerous email conversations with Steven Weinberg, who won the Nobel prize in physics in 1979, in which as questioned him on certain issues in his book on cosmology, The First Two Minutes. It's a bit dated now, but still worth a read if you haven't done so. I also had the great pleasure of discussing cosmology with Geroge Smoot, for a few hours a couple of years ago. George won the Nobel prize in physics in 2006 for his work on the COBE project. George was one of the keynote speakers at the SuperComputing Conference three of four years ago, and he made himself available after his talk for anyone who wanted to chat. Out of the ~10,000 people attending the conference that year, only 4 of us took advantage of the opportunity.

--Doug

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thank you .. very clear.

Here's the question I haven't been able to find an answer to, and maybe you have a pointer: when did the Population I stars begin formation and what has been their relative population since that time?

If we think Pop III and II stars ended up in supernovas relatively early .. say at the 4BY point, then I'd agree that we'd have most of the 14BY since the big bang at our disposal for life formation.

But if that isn't the case, and Pop I stars didn't appear in interesting numbers until much later, 8BY say, then my initial surprise holds.

I do want to be clear this is not a religious thing, that I do accept the big bang and evolution and that I am not some sort of fundamentalist. (I only say this because you've asked if I believe in both the big bang and evolution and I found that odd.) I *certainly* do not have reason to believe we are the first to the party as you mention below!

I'm just interested in putting a bit more structure on my initially naive picture of when life may have started, thus my interest in the metal-rich stars, and their relative population over the roughly 14BY of the big bang.

-- Owen

On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:
Ok, after a night's sleep I can think about addressing your comments, Owen.

We appear to differ on the relevance of the scale of time since the big bang (presuming you believe in the big bang). The point I was trying to make was that human evolution occurred during a cosmological eye-blink of time, and "civilization" has lasted for even less than that.

During the period since the big bang, cosmology indicates that opportunities for water-life sustaining environments elsewhere in the universe have existed for billions of years prior to the present. Even on earth, there has been a ~500 million year window that is proven to have been capable of sustaining life, with no proof that Homo Sap. is the first intelligent life to have evolved here. So I therefore immediately reject your seeming assumption that "all life in the universe started at the same time" as not having sufficient basis.

Also, considering that red dwarf stars are very long-lived, it is possible that life could have evolved on a water-life-friendly planet circling one of those billions of years before even single-celled life had emerged on Earth.

One additional note related to this from the following article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2123974/IBM-building-powerful-history--hopes-unravel-origin-universe.html

"The SKA’s 15m-dishes, which will detect electromagnetic radiation emitted by objects in space, will be the most sensitive ever built - able to detect an airport radar on a planet 50 light years away."

Pretty impressive, yet when you consider that the radius of the observable universe is on the order of 45.7 billion light years it becomes obvious that we have no way of detecting any indicators of familiar 21st century earth-like technology usage other than in our immediate next-door stellar neighborhood.

Summarizing, it is the issue of scale, both spatial and temporal that leads me to believe that your opinion of us perhaps being the first to the party is not defensible.

As to stellar evolution, note that I only mentioned red dwarf stars above. But taking other main sequence starts into account only increases the potential for life. Even if you wish to preclude all but Sol-class main sequence stars, they have a life span of 10 billion years, which allows for plenty of evolution opportunities that could have occurred before we swaggered onto the scene.

As to what period of time since the big bang would I be comfortable trimming down for consideration of when life could have evolved, anywhere: I have absolutely no idea. I suspect very few people do.

--Doug

On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 9:25 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

Doug: I'm not sure if we're on the same page. Let me be as simple as possible.

Because I had earlier belonged to the Sagan school of Billions being Important, I had assumed the possibility of life was pretty much spread over the era of galaxy formation.

But after being a bit more analytic, it occurred to me that one could reduce one of the billions .. the percent of the life of the universe w/in life formation might occur .. by a considerable amount.

What I found interesting was that (considering star generations of import) that all life may be starting at about the same time .. w/in a billion or two years of each other.

Does that make sense? You keep blinding me with science and billions, about which I am already aware. I'm interested in a different phenomenon .. adding stellar evolution (and why would you presume I don't understand evolution, of all things) and using that to be a bit more intelligent about boundary conditions.

I think the answer is: You don't care about trimming the era of life formation from 12BY say, to 2-4BY. Right?

-- Owen

On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

As to being the first, we've only been civilized, if you can call it that, for a mere 5,000 years - the working definition for that descriptive being the length of recorded history. Cripes, we've only existed as a unique species for ~20,000 year. At the rate we're going, I'd place even money on us no lasting another 20,000.

So, given this, and the fact that there has been evolved multicellular, animate life on the planet for the last ~500 million years, who can state with authority that we are the first "intelligent" specie to evolve?

Unless you don't believe in evolution... Oh wait, I guess we decided not to go there. Back to our main program.

Anyhow, 500 million years on a geological time scale is sufficient for subduction to have completely obliterated sizable portions of earthly real estate. Evidence of some unfortunate prior specie's ephemeral 20,000 year claim to having become civilized could well never be found by today's archaeologists.

This is not a new concept, several science fiction writers have written stories that transpire over geological time periods. Frederich Pohl, Larry Niven, and more recently, Michael Seimsen who wrote The Dig which addresses this very proposition. In his story, a hominid species rose to approximately iron-age levels of technology ~120 million years ago, before having been being wiped out in the Cretaceous era mass extinction. These unfortunate individuals had a rough go of it, what with all the dinosaur predators roaming around at the time (Sarah Palin would have *loved* this story, presuming she could have gotten past the 6,000 year issue). As a result of the relative hard times they were living in, these hominids did not expand to the point of becoming a global blight, unlike the current inhabitants. The did have art, though.

On a much broader scale, we have what: 200 billion galaxies that we can see, each with tens to hundreds of billions of potentially habitable planets? I have a sneaky suspicion we are not the first to have experienced "the quickening", universally speaking.

--Doug

On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

Gentle readers, as much as I like /.-like digressions, interesting humor (but not religious rants), has anyone anything to add to the idea that life origins may be bound to the era after Population II star formation?

If so, we may be among the first of these very young life forms, +/- a billion years or so.

-- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

<a href="tel:505-455-7333" value="+15054557333" target="_blank">505-455-7333 - Office
<a href="tel:505-670-8195" value="+15056708195" target="_blank">505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

<a href="tel:505-455-7333" value="+15054557333" target="_blank">505-455-7333 - Office
<a href="tel:505-670-8195" value="+15056708195" target="_blank">505-670-8195 - Cell

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

Sarbajit Roy (testing)

Re: So, Are We Alone?

In reply to this post by Owen Densmore

Dear Owen

As we are agreed that this is not a religious thing, may I enquire if
you have examined Vedic Cosmology for some answers. I want to stress
that the Vedas are ancient Indian texts with their own integrity
independent of various Indian religions which claim (and distort)
them, and the orders of magnitude for various time-lines we are
discussing seem consistent (1 BB cycle = 4 x 4.3 BY).

To assist you in arriving at your answers, the oldest of the Vedas
says famously on "creation" at RV:10:129

"Who really knows? Who can confidently declare it?
From which was it born? Who gave raise to this creation?
Even the gods came subsequent to creation,
Then who can reveal from whence it arose?

That out of which creation arose,
whether it formed by itself or it did not,
He who oversees it from the highest heaven,
only he knows or maybe He does not."

On 4/3/12, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Thank you .. very clear.
>
> Here's the question I haven't been able to find an answer to, and maybe you
> have a pointer: when did the Population I stars begin formation and what
> has been their relative population since that time?
>
> If we think Pop III and II stars ended up in supernovas relatively early ..
> say at the 4BY point, then I'd agree that we'd have most of the 14BY since
> the big bang at our disposal for life formation.
>
> But if that isn't the case, and Pop I stars didn't appear in interesting
> numbers until much later, 8BY say, then my initial surprise holds.
>
> I do want to be clear this is not a religious thing, that I do accept the
> big bang and evolution and that I am not some sort of fundamentalist. (I
> only say this because you've asked if I believe in both the big bang and
> evolution and I found that odd.) I *certainly* do not have reason to
> believe we are the first to the party as you mention below!
>
> I'm just interested in putting a bit more structure on my initially naive
> picture of when life may have started, thus my interest in the metal-rich
> stars, and their relative population over the roughly 14BY of the big bang.
>
> -- Owen
>
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 12:08 PM, Douglas Roberts
> <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> Ok, after a night's sleep I can think about addressing your comments,
>> Owen.
>>
>> We appear to differ on the relevance of the scale of time since the big
>> bang (presuming you believe in the big bang). The point I was trying to
>> make was that human evolution occurred during a cosmological eye-blink of
>> time, and "civilization" has lasted for even less than that.
>>
>> During the period since the big bang, cosmology indicates that
>> opportunities for water-life sustaining environments elsewhere in the
>> universe have existed for billions of years prior to the present. Even on
>> earth, there has been a ~500 million year window that is proven to have
>> been capable of sustaining life, with no proof that Homo Sap. is the first
>> intelligent life to have evolved here. So I therefore immediately reject
>> your seeming assumption that "all life in the universe started at the same
>> time" as not having sufficient basis.
>>
>> Also, considering that red dwarf stars are very long-lived, it is
>> possible that life could have evolved on a water-life-friendly planet
>> circling one of those billions of years before even single-celled life had
>> emerged on Earth.
>>
>> One additional note related to this from the following article: h
>> ttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2123974/IBM-building-powerful-history--hopes-unravel-origin-universe.html
>>
>>
>> *"The SKA’s 15m-dishes, which will detect electromagnetic radiation
>> emitted by objects in space, will be the most sensitive ever built - able
>> to detect an airport radar on a planet 50 light years away."*
>>
>> Pretty impressive, yet when you consider that the radius of the observable
>> universe is on the order of 45.7 billion light years it becomes obvious
>> that we have no way of detecting any indicators of familiar 21st century
>> earth-like technology usage other than in our immediate next-door stellar
>> neighborhood.
>>
>> Summarizing, it is the issue of scale, both spatial and temporal that
>> leads me to believe that your opinion of us perhaps being the first to the
>> party is not defensible.
>>
>> As to stellar evolution, note that I only mentioned red dwarf stars above.
>> But taking other main sequence starts into account only increases the
>> potential for life. Even if you wish to preclude all but Sol-class main
>> sequence stars, they have a life span of 10 billion years, which allows
>> for
>> plenty of evolution opportunities that could have occurred before we
>> swaggered onto the scene.
>>
>> As to what period of time since the big bang would I be comfortable
>> trimming down for consideration of when life could have evolved, anywhere:
>> I have absolutely no idea. I suspect very few people do.
>>
>> --Doug
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 9:25 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Doug: I'm not sure if we're on the same page. Let me be as simple as
>>> possible.
>>>
>>> Because I had earlier belonged to the Sagan school of Billions being
>>> Important, I had assumed the possibility of life was pretty much spread
>>> over the era of galaxy formation.
>>>
>>> But after being a bit more analytic, it occurred to me that one could
>>> reduce one of the billions .. the percent of the life of the universe
>>> w/in
>>> life formation might occur .. by a considerable amount.
>>>
>>> What I found interesting was that (considering star generations of
>>> import) that all life may be starting at about the same time .. w/in a
>>> billion or two years of each other.
>>>
>>> Does that make sense? You keep blinding me with science and billions,
>>> about which I am already aware. I'm interested in a different phenomenon
>>> .. adding stellar evolution (and why would you presume I don't understand
>>> evolution, of all things) and using that to be a bit more intelligent
>>> about
>>> boundary conditions.
>>>
>>> I think the answer is: You don't care about trimming the era of life
>>> formation from 12BY say, to 2-4BY. Right?
>>>
>>> -- Owen
>>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Douglas Roberts
>>> <[hidden email]>wrote:
>>>
>>>> As to being the first, we've only been civilized, if you can call it
>>>> that, for a mere 5,000 years - the working definition for that
>>>> descriptive
>>>> being the length of recorded history. Cripes, we've only existed as a
>>>> unique species for ~20,000 year. At the rate we're going, I'd place
>>>> even
>>>> money on us no lasting another 20,000.
>>>>
>>>> So, given this, and the fact that there has been evolved multicellular,
>>>> animate life on the planet for the last ~500 million years, who can
>>>> state
>>>> with authority that we are the first "intelligent" specie to evolve?
>>>>
>>>> Unless you don't believe in evolution... Oh wait, I guess we decided
>>>> not to go there. Back to our main program.
>>>>
>>>> Anyhow, 500 million years on a geological time scale
>>>> is sufficient for subduction to have completely
>>>> obliterated sizable portions of earthly real estate. Evidence of some
>>>> unfortunate prior specie's ephemeral 20,000 year claim to having become
>>>> civilized could well never be found by today's archaeologists.
>>>>
>>>> This is not a new concept, several science fiction writers have written
>>>> stories that transpire over geological time periods. Frederich Pohl,
>>>> Larry
>>>> Niven, and more recently, Michael Seimsen who wrote *The Dig* which
>>>> addresses this very proposition. In his story, a hominid species rose
>>>> to
>>>> approximately iron-age levels of technology ~120 million years ago,
>>>> before
>>>> having been being wiped out in the Cretaceous era mass extinction.
>>>> These
>>>> unfortunate individuals had a rough go of it, what with all the dinosaur
>>>> predators roaming around at the time (Sarah Palin would have *loved*
>>>> this
>>>> story, presuming she could have gotten past the 6,000 year issue). As
>>>> a
>>>> result of the relative hard times they were living in, these hominids
>>>> did
>>>> not expand to the point of becoming a global blight, unlike the current
>>>> inhabitants. The did have art, though.
>>>>
>>>> On a much broader scale, we have what: 200 billion galaxies that we can
>>>> see, each with tens to hundreds of billions of
>>>> potentially habitable planets? I have a sneaky suspicion we are not the
>>>> first to have experienced "the quickening", universally speaking.
>>>>
>>>> --Doug
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Owen Densmore
>>>> <[hidden email]>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Gentle readers, as much as I like /.-like digressions, interesting
>>>>> humor (but not religious rants), has anyone anything to add to the idea
>>>>> that life origins may be bound to the era after Population II star
>>>>> formation?
>>>>>
>>>>> If so, we may be among the first of these very young life forms, +/- a
>>>>> billion years or so.
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Owen
>>>>>
>>>>> ============================================================
>>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Doug Roberts
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> [hidden email]
>>>> http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins
>>>> <http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins>
>>>> 505-455-7333 - Office
>>>> 505-670-8195 - Cell
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ============================================================
>>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ============================================================
>>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Doug Roberts
>> [hidden email]
>> [hidden email]
>> http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins
>> <http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins>
>> 505-455-7333 - Office
>> 505-670-8195 - Cell
>>
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>
>

Sarbajit Roy (testing)

Re: So, Are We Alone?

In reply to this post by Tom Carter

Thanks for reminding me about this book. I'd read it many years ago
(when I still knew maths) as an online PDF, which luckily I had still
kept saved somewhere.

Could anyone on this list update me if a "Quantum Copernican
Principle" *referred to in Chapter 7 (?) "Quantum mechanics and the
Anthropic Principle" of the book is still somewhat accepted /
discredited in the academic community. This is in the context of
classical universes and Many Worlds Interpretation.

PS: Its a wonderful book, takes heavy going, and has all the
essentials of a book I'd like to read 10 years from now.

Sarbajit

On 4/2/12, Tom Carter <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Owen -
>
> Can't remember if I've recommended this here in the past . . . but apropos
> various of these topics is "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" by Barrow
> and Tipler. It's getting a bit old now (1988), but I think still worth the
> read . . . they cover tons of fascinating stuff . . . (and are likely to
> annoy more than a few :-)
>
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Anthropic-Cosmological-Principle-Oxford-Paperbacks/dp/0192821474
>
> Thanks . . .
>
> tom
>

Gillian Densmore

Re: So, Are We Alone?

what about robotic civilisations-that is to say instead of humans civilasionastions of what we'd consider robots that might be able to live places humans cant or won't

On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:27 AM, Sarbajit Roy <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thanks for reminding me about this book. I'd read it many years ago
(when I still knew maths) as an online PDF, which luckily I had still
kept saved somewhere.

Could anyone on this list update me if a "Quantum Copernican
Principle" *referred to in Chapter 7 (?) "Quantum mechanics and the
Anthropic Principle" of the book is still somewhat accepted /
discredited in the academic community. This is in the context of
classical universes and Many Worlds Interpretation.

PS: Its a wonderful book, takes heavy going, and has all the
essentials of a book I'd like to read 10 years from now.

Sarbajit

On 4/2/12, Tom Carter <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Owen -
>
> Can't remember if I've recommended this here in the past . . . but apropos
> various of these topics is "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" by Barrow
> and Tipler. It's getting a bit old now (1988), but I think still worth the
> read . . . they cover tons of fascinating stuff . . . (and are likely to
> annoy more than a few :-)
>
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Anthropic-Cosmological-Principle-Oxford-Paperbacks/dp/0192821474
>
> Thanks . . .
>
> tom
>

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Sarbajit Roy (testing)

Re: So, Are We Alone?

If I recall one of the (improbable) possibilities thrown up by Barrow
& Tipler was that as atoms vanish the human body would also vanish, be
converted into an energy form, and that at the final point the
ultimate purpose of "life" would be revealed as being to prevent the
Universe from destroying itself by hurling all matter into a decaying
black hole (using von-Neuman machines a-la "2010")..

On 4/4/12, Gillian Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

> what about robotic civilisations-that is to say instead of humans
> civilasionastions of what we'd consider robots that might be able to live
> places humans cant or won't
>
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:27 AM, Sarbajit Roy <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for reminding me about this book. I'd read it many years ago
>> (when I still knew maths) as an online PDF, which luckily I had still
>> kept saved somewhere.
>>
>> Could anyone on this list update me if a "Quantum Copernican
>> Principle" *referred to in Chapter 7 (?) "Quantum mechanics and the
>> Anthropic Principle" of the book is still somewhat accepted /
>> discredited in the academic community. This is in the context of
>> classical universes and Many Worlds Interpretation.
>>
>> PS: Its a wonderful book, takes heavy going, and has all the
>> essentials of a book I'd like to read 10 years from now.
>>
>> Sarbajit
>>
>> On 4/2/12, Tom Carter <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Owen -
>> >
>> > Can't remember if I've recommended this here in the past . . . but
>> apropos
>> > various of these topics is "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" by
>> Barrow
>> > and Tipler. It's getting a bit old now (1988), but I think still worth
>> the
>> > read . . . they cover tons of fascinating stuff . . . (and are likely to
>> > annoy more than a few :-)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> http://www.amazon.com/Anthropic-Cosmological-Principle-Oxford-Paperbacks/dp/0192821474
>> >
>> > Thanks . . .
>> >
>> > tom
>> >
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>>
>

Arlo Barnes

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Ah, one of my favorite authors, Arthur C. Clarke. Well, in 2012 the von Neumann machines were used to increase the density of Jupiter to fusion point, creating Lucifer, the solar system's second star, in order that the life on Europa might have a more stable source of heat to evolve in than the mercurial hotspots on the ocean bottom created by Jupiter's tidal forces. This is why human beings must ATTEMPT NO LANDINGS THERE, so they do not interfere with the process of advancement to civilisation as arranged by the mysterious monolith-controlling aliens (who have energy bodies like Dave Bowman has at the end of 2001 [who by the way becomes incorporated with the energy body of HAL to become Halman after 2010] but who used to have spaceship bodies like Rama in Clarke's Rama series). For those who enjoyed the films, I highly recommend the book series, it is excellent.

But perhaps a better literary comparison is Isaac Asimov's short story The Last Question, the eponymous question being "Will we [humans] ever reverse entropy?". In the story, we have a series of vignettes of a human asking a computer the question, from engineers asking it of a huge supercomputer on Earth (contemporary to the time of writing) to a family asking it of a starship they are living on to a pair of transgalactic (energy-body, again) conversers asking it of a mystical supercomputer keeping it's vast mass in hyperspace. None of the computers can answer, and prefer to wait for more data. Eventually the computers and humans merge (that theme again) into a single being (I guess that is the Singularity?) and slip into hyperspace just before the universe heat-dies (correct usage?) and the HumPuter (my term, I forget what Asimov calls it) ponders the Question, eventually deciding it has figured it out. Thus entropy is reversed and the universe was created, with the implication that this is what God is (the religion conversation sneaking back into this thread).

-Arlo James Barnes

Nick Thompson

Re: So, Are We Alone?

I go back to the original question I asked Owen. Why are these fantasies INTERESTING?. Now, quickly, I have to admit, they don’t capture my imagination that well. But I also have to admit that I firmly believe that NOBODY is interested in anything for nothing. IE, wherever there is an interest in something, there is a cognitive quandary, a seam in our thinking that needs to be respected. So I assume that there IS a reason these fantasies are interesting [to others] and that that REASON is interesting. The reason is always more pragmantic and immediate than our fighting off being absorbed into a black hole. Speaking of which: Weren’t the Kardashians some race on some planet on StarTrek. What color where THEIR noses? And how did the writers of StarTrek know they were coming

Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Arlo Barnes
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 11:05 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] So, *Are* We Alone?

-Arlo James Barnes

Robert J. Cordingley

Re: So, Are We Alone?

There's a long lost Star Trek episode ' Run In With The Kardashians' on YouTube but I wouldn't go there - it should remain lost. The 'real' Cardassians are mentioned here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardassian. Their noses are gray.

Now setting aside possible derogatory use of 'fantasies', I think discovering possibly intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is interesting because of the subsequent cultural ramifications here on Earth. All sorts of noses of all kinds of colors will be bent out of shape. Will they have their own Hero's Journey myths, etc. etc. What will their philosophies look like? Will contact of the x-kind change who I consider to be my friends and the way I stir my coffee- absolutely! Purely pragmatic and of self-interest. Perhaps they will tell us what the meaning of INTERESTING is too.

Robert C

On 4/4/12 2:55 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

I go back to the original question I asked Owen. Why are these fantasies INTERESTING?. Now, quickly, I have to admit, they don’t capture my imagination that well. But I also have to admit that I firmly believe that NOBODY is interested in anything for nothing. IE, wherever there is an interest in something, there is a cognitive quandary, a seam in our thinking that needs to be respected. So I assume that there IS a reason these fantasies are interesting [to others] and that that REASON is interesting. The reason is always more pragmantic and immediate than our fighting off being absorbed into a black hole. Speaking of which: Weren’t the Kardashians some race on some planet on StarTrek. What color where THEIR noses? And how did the writers of StarTrek know they were coming

Nick

From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Arlo Barnes
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2012 11:05 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] So, *Are* We Alone?

Ah, one of my favorite authors, Arthur C. Clarke. Well, in 2012 the von Neumann machines were used to increase the density of Jupiter to fusion point, creating Lucifer, the solar system's second star, in order that the life on Europa might have a more stable source of heat to evolve in than the mercurial hotspots on the ocean bottom created by Jupiter's tidal forces. This is why human beings must ATTEMPT NO LANDINGS THERE, so they do not interfere with the process of advancement to civilisation as arranged by the mysterious monolith-controlling aliens (who have energy bodies like Dave Bowman has at the end of 2001 [who by the way becomes incorporated with the energy body of HAL to become Halman after 2010] but who used to have spaceship bodies like Rama in Clarke's Rama series). For those who enjoyed the films, I highly recommend the book series, it is excellent.

But perhaps a better literary comparison is Isaac Asimov's short story The Last Question, the eponymous question being "Will we [humans] ever reverse entropy?". In the story, we have a series of vignettes of a human asking a computer the question, from engineers asking it of a huge supercomputer on Earth (contemporary to the time of writing) to a family asking it of a starship they are living on to a pair of transgalactic (energy-body, again) conversers asking it of a mystical supercomputer keeping it's vast mass in hyperspace. None of the computers can answer, and prefer to wait for more data. Eventually the computers and humans merge (that theme again) into a single being (I guess that is the Singularity?) and slip into hyperspace just before the universe heat-dies (correct usage?) and the HumPuter (my term, I forget what Asimov calls it) ponders the Question, eventually deciding it has figured it out. Thus entropy is reversed and the universe was created, with the implication that this is what God is (the religion conversation sneaking back into this thread).

-Arlo James Barnes
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

1234

So, *Are* We Alone?

Re: So, *Are* We Alone?

Re: So, *Are* We Alone?

Re: So, *Are* We Alone?

Re: So, *Are* We Alone?

Re: So, *Are* We Alone?

Re: So, *Are* We Alone?

Re: So, *Are* We Alone?

Re: So, *Are* We Alone?

Re: So, *Are* We Alone?

Re: So, *Are* We Alone?

Re: So, *Are* We Alone?

Re: So, *Are* We Alone?

Re: So, *Are* We Alone?

Re: So, *Are* We Alone?

Re: So, *Are* We Alone?

Re: So, *Are* We Alone?

Re: So, *Are* We Alone?

Re: So, *Are* We Alone?

Re: So, *Are* We Alone?

Re: So, *Are* We Alone?

So, Are We Alone?

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Re: So, Are We Alone?

Re: So, Are We Alone?