Could all life be alien to this planet?

[Halibut]

Define- "state of the universe".

 

What is the universe? How much do we understand about the observable universe? What proportion of the universe is observable? what proportion of it are we unaware of?

 

 

I can't possibly answer that, stop being silly.

 

No!, you only understand the rules of logical reasoning used to reach that conclusion. You don't understand how the universe can exists without cause, how could you?

 

That's the odd thing about you Danot - you have this wonderful habit of enetering in long, complex discussions about subjects in which you're clearly out of your depth. It makes for amusing reading though. Sometimes.

[Phanerothyme]

It's way beyond the conceit of human comprehension. That's my position.

 

Why is it beyond human comprehension? Or rather, what do you think the limits of human comprehension are, and why are the limits there rather than elsewhere?

 

And why is human comprehension a "conceit"?

[esme]

It's way beyond the conceit of human comprehension. That's my position.

 

so your position is that because it's beyond our conceit we should not even try

 

we should not develop tools that attempt to answer this question because it's a futile effort, despite any other benefits we may develop or happen across along the way

 

fair enough

 

as this is the way you feel about the scientific method I suggest you take all of your possessions, pile them in a big heap and burn them, then go live in a cave wearing nothing but your skin

 

everything you use on a day to day basis was created or developed in an attempt to answer the question of "why are we here"

 

ok, a lot of these things are a long way from that question, waffles for example, but the principles that allowed their development came as a result of scientific thought and analysis

[MrSmith]

No!, you only understand the rules of logical reasoning used to reach that conclusion. You don't understand how the universe can exists without cause, how could you?

 

There isn't a how to understand and there is no reason to understand. There is no reason for the universe to exist it just does. Science will eventually understand most of things that shape it and change it, but there is nothing to understand about how or why it is here. It just is, always as been and always will be.

[danot]

That's the odd thing about you Danot - you have this wonderful habit of enetering in long, complex discussions about subjects in which you're clearly out of your depth. It makes for amusing reading though. Sometimes.

 

Subjects in which I'm out of my depths?.. me alone?

 

What am I failing to understand about this complex discussion Halibut?

[fake]

Define- "state of the universe".

 

What is the universe? How much do we understand about the observable universe? What proportion of the universe is observable? what proportion of it are we unaware of?

 

 

I can't possibly answer that, stop being silly.

 

You cant or wont as its a very simple question and one debated by cosmologists and scientists including Einstein and Hawking.

 

It also ties in and is important in answering your above questions.

[danot]

Why is it beyond human comprehension? Or rather, what do you think the limits of human comprehension are, and why are the limits there rather than elsewhere?

Our ability to observe the universe is the equivalent to being locked inside a box which has a keyhole that we can peak through. On peaking though the keyhole we're able to see millions of similar boxes which all appear to be travelling away from us at a uniform distance from one another at an exponential rate. Beyond these boxes, as far as we're capable of to seeing, is empty space, beyond the empty space is a solid wall of static interference.

 

Anything after this point in speculation.

 

Posted by Phanerothyme

 

And why is human comprehension a "conceit"?

Because it claims to know what can and what can't exists beyond the static wall.

[Halibut]

What am I failing to understand about this complex discussion Halibut?

 

Almost everything.

[HeadingNorth]

Do you not see the contradiction in those statements?

 

I'm not asking you to accept both of them. I'm asking you whether you agree that one or other of them must be true.

 

EITHER:

 

- Things which exist must of necessity have a cause.

 

OR:

 

- Things can exist without needing a cause.

 

 

Or, if you can think of a third option, to post it. We'll take the discussion from there.

[danot]

so your position is that because it's beyond our conceit we should not even try

 

we should not develop tools that attempt to answer this question because it's a futile effort, despite any other benefits we may develop or happen across along the way

 

fair enough

 

as this is the way you feel about the scientific method I suggest you take all of your possessions, pile them in a big heap and burn them, then go live in a cave wearing nothing but your skin

 

everything you use on a day to day basis was created or developed in an attempt to answer the question of "why are we here"

 

ok, a lot of these things are a long way from that question, waffles for example, but the principles that allowed their development came as a result of scientific thought and analysis

 

I've nothing against progress, I just find the general line or argument of cosmology conceited.