Bill Nye Talks Extraterrestrial Life: 'It's Gotta Exist'

a reply to: CretumOrbis

Then we are in agreement. I just finished saying that the universe could be a situation where a creator "sets it and forgets it" to see what happens (like a universal science experiment or something). It is the most likely situation that I could see for a creator given how there is no evidence existing of a creator directly interacting with the physical universe. OR everything could just be the result of random events.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You said:

Because science and the instruments we use to quantify it aren't perfect. That is why we have margins of error in everything that science reports on. Our instruments are imprecise. So naturally, things our theories and hypothesis are going to be off by certain orders of magnitude. It's inevitable.

This is a statement that lacks understanding into how science works.

No, these things will not be off by 100 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE. That's why it's called the Vacuum Catastrophe. You have Quantum Theory that has given us predictions that are correct or off a little here and there. When we get to one of it's most important predictions, it's off by 100 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE!

“Vacuum Catastrophe” Should Be Called the Vacuum Miracle

Quantum field theory allows us to calculate how much energy there should be in the vacuum of space because of these virtual particles. The problem is that when scientists do the calculations, they get a number that is ridiculously wrong. According to this page of a UCLA astronomer, quantum field theory gives a prediction that every cubic centimeter of the vacuum should have an energy density of 1091 grams. This number is 10 followed by 90 zeroes. That is an amount trillions of times greater than the mass of the entire observable universe, which is estimated to be only about 1056 grams.

This means that according to quantum field theory every cubic centimeter of empty space should have more mass-energy than all the mass-energy in the entire observable universe.

How far off is this calculation? It varies on how you do the calculations. According to one type of calculation, the predictions of quantum field theory is wrong by a factor of 1060, which is a factor of a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times. According to a different way of estimating it, the predictions of quantum field theory is wrong by a factor of 10120, which is a factor of a million billion quadrillion quintillion sextillion septillion octillion times.

futureandcosmos.blogspot.com...

There's no evidence about any IMAGINARY TREE BRANCHES.

a reply to: neoholographic

You are using an unsolved problem in quantum physics to try to prove the fine tuning argument. That is just a ridiculous version of the god of the gaps argument. Because science hasn't nailed down the exact way things work, therefore god!

Also this:
Vacuum catastrophe

It should be stressed that quantum field theory in itself gives no prediction for any measurable vacuum energy unless several assumptions are made that have no grounds in observation or established theory. These include the assumption that quantum field theory acts as a natural and effective field theory down to the Planck scale and the assumption that vacuum energy gravitates.[2] The nature of vacuum energy continues to be of great theoretical interest because of the ambiguities in what our best theories appear to suggest for it.

There's no evidence about any IMAGINARY TREE BRANCHES.

Are you an seriously this dense? I brought that point up to illustrate a point not as evidence to prove a concept...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: CretumOrbis
a reply to: Legman

It's not an assumption, it's math. Most of the constants, if changed even slightly, would make it impossible for matter to form. Every form of life we're aware of requires a physical form, so no physical form means no life.

So, are you trying to argue that a universe without matter can't exist? Just because you can't imagine such a thing doesn't mean it is impossible. Maybe if the laws were different, something OTHER than matter forms. Maybe it's just a blank void of particles that can't combine to form larger objects. Who knows? But to assume that such a universe can't exist is naive.

I'm not even saying life requires matter in our own universe - just that it is all that has been observed, so far.

We don't even have the full set of rules to be able to make that determination. We can, however, determine the likelihood of a universe forming with a set of rules conducive to life as we know it.

Of course, if life didn't require a physical form, why create physical laws at all?

a reply to: CretumOrbis

That's the thing. The fine tuning argument makes those determinations without knowing the full set of rules either. It just randomly assumes that we are the reason for the universe therefore look at the unlikeliness of us appearing in the universe, therefore god exists.

Yes, we can figure out these probabilities, but using the unlikeliness of us appearing given what we know from science to prove a god is very short sighted. For one, those probabilities could be completely wrong, given that we don't know all the variables. For two, we don't know how many universes exist outside of our universe to even MAKE this alleged probability so unlikely. What if the laws of physics as we know them are a 100% certainty within every universe that appears and the things that happen within them are dependent on how they interact with each other?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You said:

You are using an unsolved problem in quantum physics to try to prove the fine tuning argument. That is just a ridiculous version of the god of the gaps argument. Because science hasn't nailed down the exact way things work, therefore god!

Exactly what unsolved problem are you referring to?

Here's more:

www.astro.ucla.edu...

www.askamathematician.com... se/

It's only unsolved if you talk about IMAGINARY TREE BRANCHES.

How do you explain these values arising naturally especially after Planck's satellite gave us values even more precise?

originally posted by: Legman
a reply to: CretumOrbis

Yes or no.... Do you know every permutation of constants that would support life? Can you imagine how many permutations of universe and life that could exist? The religious folk say yes to each of my questions. People with logic answer no.

1. No
2. Yes, the number of possible permutations can be calculated. All you have to do is take the number of variables to the power of however many possible states each variable has. It's just basic algebra...

originally posted by: theghostfaceentity
a reply to: CretumOrbis

Every form of life YOURE aware of* haha, disembodied spirits are more frequent than bodied vehicles driving our spirits homie, that stuff inside you you cant explain, buddhists call it qi, ki, or chi, yeah thats quantum matter that makes your soul, youre a disembodied spirit inside of a meatsack vehicle. Thats the science lol. Now that you know that you might have the same kinds of visitors I see on a frequent basis

I think I just covered that... Nothing I've stated precludes the possibility of non-physical life. The topic at hand is why the physical laws of our universe are the way they are. If you're a non-physical life form then the laws of physics mean absolutely nothing to you, and your existence or lack thereof is a moot point in this discussion.

originally posted by: neoholographic
Exactly what unsolved problem are you referring to?

The one YOU brought up. The Vacuum Catastrophe.

Here's more:

www.astro.ucla.edu...

www.askamathematician.com... se/

It's only unsolved if you talk about IMAGINARY TREE BRANCHES.

Why are you so hung up on this point? Do you not know what a data tree is? It is a computer science object and of COURSE it is imaginary... AGAIN I only brought that up to illustrate a point since mounting probabilities are easier to conceptualize with a tree structure.

And the vacuum catastrophe certainly IS unsolved that is why the predictions aren't matching up with the measured result. That is what science considers and unsolved problem.

How do you explain these values arising naturally especially after Planck's satellite gave us values even more precise?

Why are you asking me to answer a question that even scientists don't have an answer to yet? Not knowing the answer to the question doesn't automatically make the fine tuning argument valid. It just shows that scientific knowledge is incomplete, but I never said it wasn't.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You said:

Why are you asking me to answer a question that even scientists don't have an answer to yet? Not knowing the answer to the question doesn't automatically make the fine tuning argument valid. It just shows that scientific knowledge is incomplete, but I never said it wasn't.

Exactly what's incomplete about it? You said earlier that the universe was inefficient and no Designer would design it this way, now you're telling us knowledge is incomplete?????

HOW COULD YOU KNOW THE UNIVERSE WAS INEFFICIENTLY DESIGNED IF KNOWLEDGE IS INCOMPLETE?

Sadly, you're just full of contradictions.

Secondly, what's exactly incomplete? How can these values arise naturally? The only way you can try to do this is talking about IMAGINARY TREES or universes with all these different values that we can't observe because you can't mathematically explain how these values can arise naturally.

originally posted by: neoholographic
Exactly what's incomplete about it? You said earlier that the universe was inefficient and no Designer would design it this way, know you're telling us knowledge is incomplete?????

It IS inefficient. Just look at humans. Why do we have to breathe and eat from the same hole?

HOW COULD YOU KNOW THE UNIVERSE WAS INEFFICIENTLY DESIGNED IF KNOWLEDGE IS INCOMPLETE?

Because it is obvious... I don't need to know everything about the universe to see that it evolves inefficiently.

Sadly, you're just full of contradictions.

Not really, you just don't want to attempt to understand what I'm talking about.

Secondly, what's exactly incomplete? How can these values arise naturally? The only way you can try to do this is talking about IMAGINARY TREES or universes with all these different values that we can't observe because you can't mathematically explain how these values can arise naturally.

The scientific knowledge base is incomplete. We DON'T know everything about the universe. And YOU can't explain with math or science how the universe was fine tuned except by using the "god of the gaps" argument. MY point is that I'm trying to leave possibility for other options. YOUR point is that the universe was DEFINITELY designed by something else. You refuse to acknowledge that there could be different possibilities for the way the universe arose and you use human calculating errors to prove your point. It is the most ridiculous argument I've ever read.

Ah, the old "size equals life" argument. We like it because it seems to make sense on the surface. But logically no matter how big the universe is, there's no guarantee that other life will exist in it.

Say you have a huge stadium and a football is sitting on one of the seats for some unknown reason. Are we supposed to take it for granted that if you increase the size of the stadium by 1,000 times (or 1,000,000) that there just has to be another football on one of the seats? It just magically appears at a certain point?

So I'm going to hold off believing in other life until we discover it. Bill Nye has his opinion and I have mine.

my 2 cents...maybe the earth has been used as a genetic farm for thousands of years. maybe there are 3 races of life in their own star systems (Caucasian, Negroid, Asian) that have home planets where the gene pool has become so "weak" that they require a genetic mixing. maybe these 3 star systems are the only civilizations, close enough to earth for their technology, to reach us. their artificial life forms are no longer able to sustain the proper blend of life and machine, and need to come to earth for a genetic "update" so-to-speak. these 3 civilizations have agreed that earth is neutral ground, hence, different craft and beings observed on earth over the centuries.

a reply to: jimmyx

Though just to be clear, there are 4 major races on earth. Australoid's can clearly be differentiated from Negroids.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You said:

Because it is obvious... I don't need to know everything about the universe to see that it evolves inefficiently.

So you don't need to know how the universe originated and what forces contribute to our universe even existing and you can say it's inefficient?

That's just ASININE. Tell me about quantum gravity and it's affects on evolution? What force contributed to the vacuum energy being fined tuned to one part to 10/120 and what effects this force had on our evolution?

You said:

Not really, you just don't want to attempt to understand what I'm talking about.

What's there to understand beyond an opinion that has nothing to do with the facts and is full of contradictions?

What god of the gaps argument?

How can there be a god of the gaps when it's based on science? I'm not saying, well we don't know so it must be God or a Designer. I'm saying we do know and what we know says it has to be God or a Designer.

You can speculate about IMAGINARY TREE BRANCHES all you want but it's just nonsense. What physical theory can naturally give rise to these numbers based on what we know about the standard model and quantum theory? It's just not possible and all of the wishful thinking about IMAGINARY TREE BRANCHES will not change this.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
Though just to be clear, there are 4 major races on earth. Australoid's can clearly be differentiated from Negroids.

Well the whole notion of "race" is a kind of antiquated 18th and 19th Century construct created by European explorers and conquerors to classify and rank various people in the world in an attempt to justify taking their land and exploiting their resources.

Modern genetic studies have found that human species diversity is a bit more complex than judging people according to their skin color or the shape of their skulls.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Ah, the old "size equals life" argument. We like it because it seems to make sense on the surface. But logically no matter how big the universe is, there's no guarantee that other life will exist in it.

Say you have a huge stadium and a football is sitting on one of the seats for some unknown reason. Are we supposed to take it for granted that if you increase the size of the stadium by 1,000 times (or 1,000,000) that there just has to be another football on one of the seats? It just magically appears at a certain point?

So I'm going to hold off believing in other life until we discover it. Bill Nye has his opinion and I have mine.

Logically, it makes perfect sense when you add in other things we know about life. There's 100% guarantee that life evolved on other planets. This is due to the constants of nature.

People think that life had to find it's way through a bunch of chance events but that's not the case. This universe with it's constants will produce stars, moons, galaxies and life. It has no other choice.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: jimmyx

Though just to be clear, there are 4 major races on earth. Australoid's can clearly be differentiated from Negroids.

genetically different and not a blend from ancient history?....if so, then I stand corrected.

We (humans) as a species are not mature or grown enough to handle intelligent life forms from another world.

We still argue about wedding cakes for gay people. People of other skin color make us uncomfortable. Imagine being in the presence of something not even of Earth. Really try, try and imagine it. It would terrify your to the core, trust me.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
We (humans) as a species are not mature or grown enough to handle intelligent life forms from another world.

We still argue about wedding cakes for gay people. People of other skin color make us uncomfortable. Imagine being in the presence of something not even of Earth. Really try, try and imagine it. It would terrify your to the core, trust me.

And what if intolerance is a universal shortcoming inherent to intelligent beings?

Children grow from unconditional acceptance to various degrees of intolerance. Now imagine being in the presence of something not of Earth thousands or millions of years more advanced. Terrifying?

a reply to: MystikMushroom

I hear what your saying, but I think I'm personally mature enough to handle the reality of another intelligent life form.

It just seems unfair that I should miss out on witnessing the reality of the universe, because of the feeble mindedness of the majority.