/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4888193

But that doesn't answer my question. It merely suggests that extraterrestrial life is more improbable than previously (and popularly) theorized. To say that the probability of other-wordly life being zero is as similarly scientific as religion is.

>>4888185

And on what grounds have you determined said statement which such certainty?

This is just a glorified cloning device...except you kill the host.

To blindly accept statements without the consulting the facts seems a more obvious bastardization of Sagan's mentality than these "stories" which are quite obviously fabricated.

Religion tends to stray so far from reality (and observable fact) that there's no real point to subscribe to it. Even the seemingly non-deistic religions contend that certain spiritual entities inhabit this world, which is completely absurd as it is nonsense.

>>4738150

or*

Pardon me, I'm not one for syntax or grammatical perfection.

The claims regarding the existence of "worldly" UFOs (area 51, etc) are dubious at best. The possibility of extraterrestrial life, however, is very good.

Unfortunately, we must recognize two similarly frightening truths: Either we are alone in the universe are we are not.

>>4731305

Yes, but the question is such: How long must we wait until we do so?

Although I'm hopeful for the invention of the FTL drive, I'm skeptical that we'll ever reach beyond the borders of our own solar system until the end of the next century.

>>4728274
>You just do not understand science. You understand pop-science. But that's all. You clearly think that observation and experimentation is simply insufficient to understand the universe.

Indeed, observation and experimentation are the bane of the scientific enterprise. When have I ever stated the contrary?

>You're arguing god of the gaps. That because we do not know everything we can't claim to know how certain aspects of the universe work as a certainty.

You misunderstand the God of the Gaps fallacy. While it does base itself on information we have yet to extrapolate, it sets out to prove God's existence due to this exclusion of understanding. The formulation of hypothesis are by no means indicative of "god of the gaps" argument.

>Engineering. To answer your baseless question. Go ahead and hide in your ad hominems.

Oh by no means. I think Engineering is a fantastic field, it's just that I found theoretical physics more interesting.

>>4728249

Which field of science have you majored in/are majoring in? I'm sure any misunderstanding will be cleared up in your response.

>>4728188

>You're the one who doesn't understand relativity, at all.
>Or physics.
>Or reality.

In what regard?

>Protip: You cannot break the laws of physics.

I agree.

>I know you want to believe in magic that can. But just wanting and throwing a tantrum every single time science says you can't do something is just juvenile.

By no means do I believe in magic. To consider a theoretical possibility does not make one a magical thinker.

>Are you also mad at science for proving heliocentrism? Or that we Evolved as opposed to being created?

Creationism provides no evidence to substantiate its outlandish claims. The evidence to support Evolution, however, is substantial and therefore requires our fullest attention. Anything proven by the standards of science commands my utmost respect. The God Hypothesis is not so much a hypothesis as it's a manifestation of our own convenience. There is no convincing argument to suppose the existence of a supernatural being. (ergo: God)

>What other tantrums do you throw when science says something mean that you don't understand one word of?

I fear I don't understand your sentiment. Does the possibility of the seemingly impossible bother you?

>>4728193

no it's not.

>>4728151

If I may illuminate your misunderstanding, my point was the following:

To affirm anything with absolute certainty is foolish. To say that the limit acts on the speed of light alone demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding in relativity.

To your credit, the claims that FTL is possible are dubious and should be examined with an eye of incredulity.

Any Cosmologist will tell that the Universe is flat as opposed to infinite.

The statement "FTL travel is impossible" contradicts the very grounds on which Science stands; there may very well be a possibility which we have yet to explore. We are very infantile in our technological development, and to say anything for certainty is to completely shut ourselves in ignorance willingly.

>>4724090

Pardon me, I meant "epoch"

Assuming FTL drives were possible, their invention would mean the raising of Humanity into a higher epic -- spurring a golden age and furthering our expansion into the known Universe.

>>4718309

It wasn't so much personal commentary as it was a relatively obscure (and benign) joke. Search "Would you kindly..." on Google and you'll understand why.

As for the aforementioned statement concerning Science, I'd like to believe that science is the best thing we have when contemplating the Universe. In fact, Science is the only process we have which works! To say otherwise would be an engagement in recreational theology.

>Science is trivial

Would you kindly escort yourself out of this forum?

>>4718150

There's a difference between personal opinion and absolute certainty. I cannot say with absolute certainty that this universe is not the product of virtual engineering. I also cannot say with absolute certainty that this Universe is not the product of some supernatural intervention. But with logic, scientific intuition, and evidence, I am able to make an educated guess and infer something which I don't claim to know.

>>4718115
Occam's Razor effortlessly discards such theories. Much simpler and concise theories exist for such limitations.

>>4718132
Imagine the amount of code which makes up the Universe. Now imagine the amount time it took to manufacture this "code". I'd imagine the probability of such an undertaking would surely cause significant virtual deficiencies. Much like our own designs and biological processes, imperfection is rife.

>>4718099

Just like any virtual program, "glitches" is just nomenclature for the sudden, usually temporary malfunctions or irregularities a program may experience. In the same way, an artificially created Universe would have somewhat noticeable inconsistencies.

Even then, and as I stated previously, there's no evidence to suggest that we're living in a virtual world.

We can be fairly certain that having a "Matrix" of sorts would cause some noticeable "glitches" by through interpersonal interaction on physical model -- whether they be algorithmic or purely physical. There is no proof to suggest a Matrix-like world.

Anonymity is a farce on 4chan, and there's no reason to hide when having a pseudonym is generally regarded on positive terms.

So we've come full circle then.