/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5070680
continued from

>Do you think there will be certain basic emotions that resonate with the far future? Do you think similar carbon based lifeforms would have such basic emotions?
I think the only fundamental thing we can assume about other intelligent life forms is that if they are a technological species, like our own, we can safely conclude that they are logical in nature. From this conclusion, much can be understood about them. Speculation about their emotions could probably go no further than assuming that they have a basic instinct to survive. What you can conclude from that, I think, is ambiguous, at best.

>It may be simplistic to say only these kinds of biology work, but that doesn't preclude the possibility of silicon based lifeforms does it?
No. I only meant to point out that we already know that at least one kind of biology works, so it is much safer go with the probability argument. Since we have no evidence for any other biology, it isn't nearly as meaningful to make the probability argument (probability of what? we don't know).

>>3277555
Gluons are just as proven as every other fucking particle. And they have been for sometime now.

They are as factual as the electron, proton, quarks, photons, etc.