|
On February 05 2015 00:48 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 00:17 Dark_Chill wrote:On February 04 2015 23:44 Simberto wrote:
You don't need FTL if you have time. If you send out a colonizing ship, that colonizes a planet and sends out another wave of colonizing ships a thousand years later, you can still colonize the whole of the galaxy in a not-too long period of time (cosmologically speaking). Meaningful timespan is relative. There is a lot of time out there, and so far human history is just a minor, minor speck in that ocean of time. Millions of years are not that relevant in cosmic time, where stuff usually happens in the order of billions of years. Which brings you into the topic of the Fermi paradox, which is another utterly complicated issue in itself.
And Cascade, my point is that from a single point of data which only observes itself, you can not make any deduction as to the probability of that event. We can say that it is possible for life to exist. We can not say how likely it is to occur given the right circumstances.
You don't even need multiple universes or anything along those lines. We exist. That is a fact. We wouldn't observe anything if we didn't exist, and thus we can not reasonably judge the probability of our own existance.
1) is weird because infinity is weird. Everything involving infinity tends to stop making sense, and thus i don't really think that an infinite universe (as opposed to a really big one) really makes sense as a concept. I would like to discuss on the base of a really large, finite universe (It can be shaped however, that doesn't really matter)
We have absolutely no data to determine if 2a) or 2c) are the case, which makes the whole argument pretty futile. Which would make the discovery of even the tiniest speck of non-terrestrial life, or proof of the fact that terrestrial life did not all originate from one single first living thing an incredibly important discovery, because in that case we actually have data and could make a very strong case for 2a). So far we have not found any, but we also haven't really looked in a lot of places. Aren't water bears pretty good evidence of life in the rest of the universe? No. The question isn't where life can thrive here on earth, because ALL life we have found so far, including those weird bacteria that use sulphur instead of oxygen in (some) of their cells, is RNA and DNA based, and can thus reasonably be assumed to stem from one single point of origin. That it afterwards diversified into the most incredible niches says nothing about the probability of such an origin event. That said, the question posed is a false dichotomy, because both of the statements are ridiculous due to the inclusion of the word "definitely". I think it is more likely that there is life elsewhere in the visible universe. We are finding far more planets than we expected to find, and are finding far more planets and moons within our own solar system that are theoretically capable of supporting life AS WE KNOW IT (so imagine life as we don't know it and where that might thrive). However, it is still a probability game with far too many unknowns. We can guesstimate that we are in that guy above's situation of 2a, but insofar as we know, we could be in 2c and have an extremely weird anomalous event that caused life to originate here on earth. Maybe, and here we get spiritual (and I am an atheist, so clearly not my domain), that weird anomalous event was God. Or maybe there are intelligent aliens on a planet circling Alpha Centauri, looking up into the sky and asking whether they are alone. We simply do not know, and we don't even know enough to make an accurate guess.
I think the reasoning is more that water bears can survive in conditions that you can't really find on earth, which makes it possible that they may have gotten here through on an asteroid or something.
|
On February 05 2015 07:33 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2015 23:44 Simberto wrote:
You don't need FTL if you have time. If you send out a colonizing ship, that colonizes a planet and sends out another wave of colonizing ships a thousand years later, you can still colonize the whole of the galaxy in a not-too long period of time (cosmologically speaking). Meaningful timespan is relative. There is a lot of time out there, and so far human history is just a minor, minor speck in that ocean of time. Millions of years are not that relevant in cosmic time, where stuff usually happens in the order of billions of years. Which brings you into the topic of the Fermi paradox, which is another utterly complicated issue in itself.
And Cascade, my point is that from a single point of data which only observes itself, you can not make any deduction as to the probability of that event. We can say that it is possible for life to exist. We can not say how likely it is to occur given the right circumstances.
You don't even need multiple universes or anything along those lines. We exist. That is a fact. We wouldn't observe anything if we didn't exist, and thus we can not reasonably judge the probability of our own existance.
1) is weird because infinity is weird. Everything involving infinity tends to stop making sense, and thus i don't really think that an infinite universe (as opposed to a really big one) really makes sense as a concept. I would like to discuss on the base of a really large, finite universe (It can be shaped however, that doesn't really matter)
We have absolutely no data to determine if 2a) or 2c) are the case, which makes the whole argument pretty futile. Which would make the discovery of even the tiniest speck of non-terrestrial life, or proof of the fact that terrestrial life did not all originate from one single first living thing an incredibly important discovery, because in that case we actually have data and could make a very strong case for 2a). So far we have not found any, but we also haven't really looked in a lot of places. At least a few years ago, an infinite universe was a possibility in cosmology, related to the large scale metric of the universe. Not sure if anything has changed since, but I'm fine with restricting to a single finite universe. I'm arguing that, assuming a single finite universe, the single data point that we do exist is an argument for 2a. If you are familiar with Bayesian statistics, if you don't have a prior bias toward 2a or 2c, the small likelihood of 2c should push your posterior probability towards 2a. Essentially I am saying that we would have had to be extremely lucky to exists at all in 2c, while 2a doesn't require any such luck, so unless we have other argument for 2c, we should be leaning towards 2a, as we don't believe in extreme luck. I'm not willing to bet my life on this of course, and Definitely is a too strong word in this case.
An infinite universe is about as useful a concept as the multiverse, and while it is a real theoretical possibility, it is pointless to think that way, because there is no way (for now) to even broach the possibilities: in an infinite universe there are unicorns. Because, due to our existence, we know the chance of life existing on a planet is non-zero. And thus, there are an INFINITE number of planets with life on them in an infinite universe. And given that the chance of unicorns existing if life exists is non-zero (insofar as I know there is no law of nature that prohibits the existence of unicorns), there are an INFINITE number of planets with unicorns on them. Pink ones, in fact. With bells.
See how pointless that exercise is?
However, the anthropic principle means that we don't have to believe in extreme luck. If the universe DIDN'T have life in it, we wouldn't be here to contemplate this luck. So even if it is an event that only happens once in a googolplex star systems, the posterior probability of it having happened in this star system is 1. Would you predict that to happen? No. But it did.
The point I am trying to make is that you cannot assume from 1 observation that what you observe must be (relatively) common. You could just be observing something anomalous. You can only even start talking about probabilities when you have a sufficient sample size; something we are only just starting to explore.
|
On February 05 2015 12:28 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2015 07:33 Cascade wrote:On February 04 2015 23:44 Simberto wrote:
You don't need FTL if you have time. If you send out a colonizing ship, that colonizes a planet and sends out another wave of colonizing ships a thousand years later, you can still colonize the whole of the galaxy in a not-too long period of time (cosmologically speaking). Meaningful timespan is relative. There is a lot of time out there, and so far human history is just a minor, minor speck in that ocean of time. Millions of years are not that relevant in cosmic time, where stuff usually happens in the order of billions of years. Which brings you into the topic of the Fermi paradox, which is another utterly complicated issue in itself.
And Cascade, my point is that from a single point of data which only observes itself, you can not make any deduction as to the probability of that event. We can say that it is possible for life to exist. We can not say how likely it is to occur given the right circumstances.
You don't even need multiple universes or anything along those lines. We exist. That is a fact. We wouldn't observe anything if we didn't exist, and thus we can not reasonably judge the probability of our own existance.
1) is weird because infinity is weird. Everything involving infinity tends to stop making sense, and thus i don't really think that an infinite universe (as opposed to a really big one) really makes sense as a concept. I would like to discuss on the base of a really large, finite universe (It can be shaped however, that doesn't really matter)
We have absolutely no data to determine if 2a) or 2c) are the case, which makes the whole argument pretty futile. Which would make the discovery of even the tiniest speck of non-terrestrial life, or proof of the fact that terrestrial life did not all originate from one single first living thing an incredibly important discovery, because in that case we actually have data and could make a very strong case for 2a). So far we have not found any, but we also haven't really looked in a lot of places. At least a few years ago, an infinite universe was a possibility in cosmology, related to the large scale metric of the universe. Not sure if anything has changed since, but I'm fine with restricting to a single finite universe. I'm arguing that, assuming a single finite universe, the single data point that we do exist is an argument for 2a. If you are familiar with Bayesian statistics, if you don't have a prior bias toward 2a or 2c, the small likelihood of 2c should push your posterior probability towards 2a. Essentially I am saying that we would have had to be extremely lucky to exists at all in 2c, while 2a doesn't require any such luck, so unless we have other argument for 2c, we should be leaning towards 2a, as we don't believe in extreme luck. I'm not willing to bet my life on this of course, and Definitely is a too strong word in this case. An infinite universe is about as useful a concept as the multiverse, and while it is a real theoretical possibility, it is pointless to think that way, because there is no way (for now) to even broach the possibilities: in an infinite universe there are unicorns. Because, due to our existence, we know the chance of life existing on a planet is non-zero. And thus, there are an INFINITE number of planets with life on them in an infinite universe. And given that the chance of unicorns existing if life exists is non-zero (insofar as I know there is no law of nature that prohibits the existence of unicorns), there are an INFINITE number of planets with unicorns on them. Pink ones, in fact. With bells. See how pointless that exercise is? However, the anthropic principle means that we don't have to believe in extreme luck. If the universe DIDN'T have life in it, we wouldn't be here to contemplate this luck. So even if it is an event that only happens once in a googolplex star systems, the posterior probability of it having happened in this star system is 1. Would you predict that to happen? No. But it did. The point I am trying to make is that you cannot assume from 1 observation that what you observe must be (relatively) common. You could just be observing something anomalous. You can only even start talking about probabilities when you have a sufficient sample size; something we are only just starting to explore.
I agree that infinite universes makes this problem boring.
Regarding the anthropic principle, I don't think you can apply it to the universe, unless you assume that there are many universes.
You CAN use anthropic principle on our planet, saying that the probability to get life on a planet can be very small without conflicting with the fact that there is life on this planet: because as you say, the question will only be asked on planets that did develop life. So you say that out of the 10^24 (or whatever) planets in the universe, some will develop life, and only those planets will ask the question, so a small probability of life on a given planet is not conflicting with life on our planet. Note that this argument relies on there being enough planets for at least one to develop life though.
To repeat the argument for life in our universe, you would have to make an argument along the line of: there are enough universes that at least one universe will develop life, and ofc we will be in one of those universes, so even if the probability of a universe to develop life is very small, it is not conflicting with us existing in our universe.
If there is only one universe, then you can't do that argument. If there is only one universe, and the probability is very low to develop life, then very likely there wont be anyone asking any questions about anything. So assuming that there is no other universes, the fact that we exist to ask these questions does conflict with very low chances for life in a universe.
Do you see what I say? This anthropic principle argument relies on universes/planets having a lot of chances to hit this low probability event that creates people to ask questions. So only applies for universes in a multiverse setting.
|
is it mandatory for korean casters to have hair?.
i remember from early codeS, codeA, proleague casts, casters having weird hair-dues that were trying to (over)compensate for the hair loss - Artosis, Tateless, Wolf, all had one at some point in time.
now, since Khaldor was the first to go and current proleague/NSSL casters have hair, ... what gives?
|
So my local KFC uses peanut oil, which is supposedly healthy, to fry all their chicken. Will eating fried chicken there everyday improve my lipid profile?
|
On February 05 2015 22:17 riotjune wrote:
So my local KFC uses peanut oil, which is supposedly healthy, to fry all their chicken. Will eating fried chicken there everyday improve my lipid profile?
Good thing you're asking this in the stupid question thread 😉
Peanut oil, as with all "healthy" oils, is healthy in small quantities. What you eat at KFC can not, by any stretch of the imagination, be called small quantities. While I have no clue about your "lipid profile" or what that buzzword even means, eating fried chicken every day will definitely raise your risk of CVD.
|
Lipid profile is not a buzzword, it's a set of data points on fat in the blood one gets when having blood tests done, specifically a lipid panel.
|
Well, if you eat a lot at KFC, you will probably have more fat in your blood. And anywhere else you can imagine.
|
So.....no? Damn.
I guess it's back to binging on red wine to increase them HDLs cause my gym membership expired (not that I did anything with it) and I'm too lazy to run outside in the damn freezing snow. There goes 2 of my new years resolutions.
|
Remember red wine is a J-curve. No more than 3 glasses or you'll increase your risk of CVD again.
|
How do i know when liquid is playing csgo when i mostly visit liquiddota.com and not other sites?
|
Liquid Team News subforum
|
Sosexy again, the 'I love USA so much I want to know everything about it  '
Serious question. Due to firearms laws, aren't u afraid of being shot sometimes? For example, arguing in a club, arguing at a traffic light. over parkings... if I get caught in one of those situations here, I know that I may get punched or similar stuff. Do you consider the risk?
|
On February 09 2015 05:50 SoSexy wrote:Sosexy again, the 'I love USA so much I want to know everything about it ' Serious question. Due to firearms laws, aren't u afraid of being shot sometimes? For example, arguing in a club, arguing at a traffic light. over parkings... if I get caught in one of those situations here, I know that I may get punched or similar stuff. Do you consider the risk?
Depends on where and who you are. Lot's of downtown type clubs have metal detectors so at least inside you are generally safe (of course people know you are coming out unarmed so there's that).
I'd say I'm generally more worried about getting stabbed (because it's easier to get away with and harder to prove) Plus if you got stabbed at one of my local bars it would be 20+ mins for a cop to show up and take a bullshit report and nothing would happen to the person who stabbed you. But a shooting might actually make the news so the police would have to at least pretend to do some investigating (presuming the victim wasn't black so they couldn't just call it gang violence and move on).
Also, that's why if you get in a fight and are winning you have to try to make it audibly clear to the witnesses that you will stop when your opponent stops, to try to deflate a "stand your ground" defense. Because as the laws are someone can walk up to me pick a fight and start losing then shoot me and get off scot-free.
In Washington though we are blessed with a mutual combat law where we can agree to a fight and no one goes to jail. Unless of course one of the combatants takes it to the next level.
So if I want to fight someone I just challenge them, that way if they shoot me at the end at least they might go to prison.
Challenging people separates the shit talkers from the people who actually plan on backing up their talk and aren't just counting on pressing assault charges if you actually take them up on their offer to beat their ass. Or are just looking for an excuse to shoot you.
Realistically though chances are if you got shot it was by someone in your close community or someone you knew. Black people tend to get shot by gang members (whether they themselves were in a gang or not) and white people tend to get shot by family members or classmates.
|
Yeah, your chance of getting shot by a stranger are pretty low most places in the country. I mean, don't go out of your way to piss people off. Remember, an armed society is a polite society. :-)
|
If a girl had the same name as you, would that be a dealbreaker? I imagine it'd be pretty wierd.
|
On February 09 2015 11:10 Najda wrote:
If a girl had the same name as you, would that be a dealbreaker? I imagine it'd be pretty wierd.
Well I suppose that's mainly an issue with androgynous names but I think we would just have to come up with nicknames for people to use when we were together.
It wouldn't bother me any more than a best friend with the same name, just a pain in the ass when people are trying to get your attention.
Although if my girlfriends name was something like "Dick" or "Edgar" I might have some more questions.
|
Wouldn't bother me a bit.
|
Do other countries do this bullshit with gas prices?
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/w4saPVS.jpg)
You'd be surprised how many people don't know the 9/10 at the end of the price means they charge you 9/10 of a penny more than the big numbers.
Fractions of a penny are rounded up as a rule also. So unless you buy at least 10 gallons they are getting that full extra penny on each gallon.
I don't understand why it's allowed for gas but practically nothing else?
|
On February 09 2015 05:50 SoSexy wrote:Sosexy again, the 'I love USA so much I want to know everything about it ' Serious question. Due to firearms laws, aren't u afraid of being shot sometimes? For example, arguing in a club, arguing at a traffic light. over parkings... if I get caught in one of those situations here, I know that I may get punched or similar stuff. Do you consider the risk?
I've been punched by a stranger on public transit, never been shot. Media covers a pretty small window of real, day to day life in the states.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
