Searching for radio signals from distant civilizations may be futile. That's what scientists who recently met at the Harvard Smithsonian Institution say that we may be the galaxy's first intelligent generation
Searching for radio signals from distant civilizations may be futile. So say scientists who recently met at the Harvard-Smithsonian Institute. The dominant point of view of the astronomers at the symposium that dealt with the future of life in the universe is that if life exists out there, the creatures that develop in it will almost certainly be bacteria or other silent creatures.
The speakers reviewed the emergence of life on Earth, and the many, low-probability steps required to create intelligence here. Radio astronomer Grit Versher said that he believes that the current thinking is that there is a high probability of the existence of life in space, perhaps even in abundance - but the probability that this life will give birth to intelligent beings capable of communicating with us - is not high.
Versher presented his version of the Drake formula, developed by astronomer Frank Drake in 1960. This formula provides the ways to calculate the number of intelligent civilizations that humanity will be able to make contact with.
The equation relates these odds to the rarity of stars that have planets in the habitable zone. It also includes the rate at which life evolves on these planets and eventually develops intelligence, technology, and interstellar communication capabilities. Finally, it estimates the lifespan of such a civilization.
Versher referred to the Drake equation and calculated that it is possible that there might be just one other technological civilization that could make contact with humanity in the entire group of galaxies that includes our Milky Way - a negligible number that may explain why 30 years of scanning the skies for signals from intelligent beings has not yet yielded a single discovery of such a civilization. "I'm not optimistic," Vershor said.
Dimitar Saslov, a professor of astrophysics at Harvard and director of Harvard's Origin of Life Initiative, agreed with Versher that life is almost certainly common in the universe. He said that he believes that life is a natural phenomenon that occurs on every planet that meets basic conditions in terms of distance from its sun, size, composition of atmosphere, etc.
As for intelligent life, give it time, he said. Although it's hard to think of it this way, at about 14 billion years old, the universe is quite young. The heavy elements that make up planets like Earth were not available in the early universe. They were created by stars during their exploding process. Enough of these materials were available to form rocky planets like Earth only 7-8 billion years ago. When you consider that it took nearly 4 billion years for intelligent life to appear on Earth, it may not be surprising that intelligence is a rare commodity. "It takes a long time to get there." Saslov said. "We may be the first generation in this galaxy."
Several researchers praised the launch of the Kepler space telescope last March. This telescope is designed to search for Earth-like planets orbiting other stars. Several faculty members from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, including Saslov, are serving as investigators on the telescope mission.
Saslov said he expects a rapid addition of 350 planets around other stars. By the end of the summer, he said, we may have found more than a dozen "super-Earths" — or planets starting or twice the size of Earth, that Saslov expects will contain stable conditions that allow life to develop.
If life evolved elsewhere, natural history professor Andrew Knoll used lessons from Earth to get a sense of what it takes to develop intelligence. Out of the three main groups of life - the bacteria, the archaea and the eukaryotes, only the eukaryotes have evolved into complex living things. And even among the large number of eukaryotic creatures, complex life appeared in only a few places - animals, plants, petrion, as well as red and brown algae. Noll said that he believes that the development of the ability to move, oxygen levels and predation, together with the sophisticated sensor system that accompanies them, as well as coordinated activity and finally a brain - provide the first step towards intelligence.
"It was only during the last century - a tiny period of time compared to the history of the Earth - that humanity was able to develop the technology that allowed it to communicate outside the Earth," Noll said. Although the Kepler space telescope may advance the search for Earth-like planets, it will not tell us if there is life there, or if life existed there in the past.
For the news in Universe Today
More on the subject on the science website
141 תגובות
Apparently the other intelligences, if they exist, are not with us on the same continuum of time. But maybe there will be someone who will be able to produce the right sequence and synchronize and produce communication and symiosis.
All the formulas and calculations are like hypothetical exercises given in a job interview and are based on so many hypotheses and assumptions that in the end the final result is in doubt and no wonder it changes every time.
Whether there is other intelligent life or not, the chance that we will meet them soon tends to zero both because of the relatively minimal existence time of intelligent civilizations (at least ours for now) and because of the vast distances.
It would have been more beneficial to invest the resources in what is necessary so that humans do not become extinct and also perhaps succeed in settling in other places outside the earth and not in hypothetical questions whose answer will not be relevant or certain in any case until a few thousand years into the future...
I think the likelihood of having intelligent life is really (but really) low.
There are too many serial conditions for there to be another planet with creatures that know how to get along with the Pythagorean theorem (for example).
In fact, I can't even imagine life not only here (Milky Way) but anywhere else in the universe.
We humans, cats, mice, cockroaches... we are simply a mistake.
A series of incidents that happened.
Everyone is wrong
And they created you - the reader.
The probability of intelligence is inferior to a miracle (divine, not coffee)
God is more likely to exist than a boy or girl taking a shower in Adromeda.
And it's much more likely to win the lottery 18 times than to see someone complaining about their living conditions somewhere on some planet.
we are alone
And we should start guarding this place
Because, someday reason will reach other places - but its source will be from here. The beautiful and perfect land of Israel.
There is no culture in the universe more advanced than humanity because as soon as an intelligent culture reaches the level of humanity - it simply destroys itself....
Exactly and exactly and exactly
Why is the only weakest Jewish nation that survives and remains on its existence in its faith?
And who knows here among all the great experts of what infinity man is made up of, and in fact every animal that is on the face of the earth, both the plant and the inanimate.
How is it that with precisions that are infinitely probable they bought a strike right here with us
And already the prophet screamed
Lift up your eyes and see who created these, the one who gives names to all of them in the number of their army, who will call out of great power and valiant as if no one is absent.
And he who does not believe in the Almighty Creator of the world is nothing but a fool and a fool, and just as the building bears witness to the builder, so the world bears witness to its creator and creator, whose intelligence is unsearchable.
Abraham, our Hebrew father, already opened the eyes of idol worshipers to recognize the Creator of the world and soon the Messiah King will come and they will teach those who are lost in it and they will give him a royal crown and the whole earth will know God as water covers the sea.
Dear Friends
I hereby offer a little thought exercise.
Let's try for a moment to discuss the issue of "free will" in physical terms.
As we know so far from physics, there are 4 forces in nature. Gravitational force, electromagnetic force and the "strong" and "weak" nuclear forces.
To which of these four forces would you attribute the physical action whose result is the plea of "free will"?
As far as I know about chemistry, biochemistry, biology and botany, this entire field deals only with the electromagnetic field. All biological and biochemical properties are at the atomic and molecular level
In the orders of magnitude in which the electromagnetic force operates "exclusively".
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the phenomenon of "free will" too, if we want to study it, then the research will be concentrated in this area. It is unlikely that the phenomenon of free will will be studied, for example, as "the effects of gravity on the individual's personality". With the same degree of probability, you will not investigate the same phenomenon
as the effects of the weak or strong nuclear forces on the phenomenon of free will.
The conclusion that follows from the considerations below is that the phenomenon called "free will" is not just an application of electromagnetic interaction
And therefore, this phenomenon has nothing to do with the basic properties of matter.
Did it pass the test of a transmission from Earth that lasted one light year
In my opinion, all transmissions and it doesn't matter what frequencies were swallowed up in the cosmic noise full of electromagnetic radiation
After all, we have a total of twenty-five light-minute attempts of communication with the Voyager probe
Hugin,
For the purpose of streamlining, please add at the end of each of your comments:
"Blah blah blah blah…"
This will also save obvious responses
1) The minotaur(s) do not need to be trapped again inside the 'labyrinth' trap.
The lifelines are about to be torn at any moment.
2) The critical mass that the brains of the 'man'-as Homospians or the 'gods' have built and created and the chain assemblies of the overloads stand on the edge of the divine 'nature' which is no longer 'allowed' to carry the overloads burdening it as witnesses of excess gravity.
His 'cut' nature for breathing vibrates upward and the survival of the 'universe' will vomit up any remaining 'hardness' 'thought' that burdens his rhythmic beats.
3) 'Free choice' is correct, until 'moments of truth', from which there is no escape.
4) Blessed are those who understand.
To be honest:
I did not understand the connection between the search for truth and the search for comfort.
In any case, if things are too cumbersome, convoluted and complicated for you - to be honest, you are exempt from dealing with them, especially 'at these critical hours' (?).
You can, in fact, continue to feel good without letting facts or doubts confuse you. And that's okay, because we live in a democratic country. Just don't make a 'work arrangement' for someone else. We are not in some gulag...
Michael:
The debate about Libet is not yours only with me, it is first of all with Rosenthal, whose article you wanted to rely on. Rosenthal's 'horse' here is alive and kicking (on the subject of Binet's methodological error), and precisely on the one who wants to ride it (on the subject of Rosenthal's speculation on the 'unconscious desires')...
By the way, Rosenthal also talked about the unconscious desires as mental...events.
Since there is a matter of reading comprehension here, then I also get tired... and the readers will judge the article - who is right.
In any case, brain research is still in its infancy, and the questions about free will, free choice, etc. are open questions, and as I said in a previous response - it is too early to eulogize or sanctify any theory. Declarations like 'there is no free will' do not have sufficient foundation, and it is possible that the research future will still surprise with new discoveries that may mark theories of a 'third option' in all kinds of directions, as has happened many times in history.
In this context, Michael, it may be that Rosenthal in the theory of the unconscious preparatory desires will be right (and you will follow him) to one degree or another. I certainly have no difficulty seeing free will here, given the fact that Rosenthal himself assumes that this is basically a mental event, as can be well understood in his words. But it is true that if this assumption is not made, this free will seems a little strange.
So we'll wait and see.
Eddy, without wanting to offend:
We suggested that you write a book (documentation) in order to express your intellectual reasons, whatever they may be.
At this stage, your words are found to be clumsy, contorting and increasingly confusing the 'minds' that seek a little release from an unnecessary burden, which does more harm than good to all of us to 'rise a little' above unnecessary complications, in these critical hours.
forgive us
Anyway - Eddy - I also claim that there is a free will based on the unconscious.
It is a way of seeing things that is so different from what we are used to that many find it difficult to call it "free will".
You too - in one of your previous comments - argued with me that there is a difference between the experience of "red" and the experience of "desire", which the last link completely misleads.
In my opinion, you are completely wrong in criticizing Libet, but I don't have the strength to continue kicking a horse that, in my opinion, died a long time ago.
In my opinion, it is possible to make a total reduction of all mental states - to physical events
I'm sorry, Eddie, but my fatigue continues.
I get the impression that you tend to see everything as "proof of your claims" even if it directly contradicts them.
Michael and Raanan,
In my opinion, it is impossible to make a total reduction of all mental states - to purely physical events. I also think that the time has come for those who claim this to stop claiming that this is an unequivocal scientific finding. Accordingly, the claim that there is no 'free will' in the conventional sense is a claim that does not have sufficient evidence, and in fact, we are still allowed to assume that there are wills that are 'free'.
I will try to reason:
1.
I re-read Rosenthal's review article on Libet's experiments (linked again in response 105), and it is absolutely clear from him that Libet's experiments are not evidence for the claim that every mental state is a function of a purely physical event.
I don't like to repeat my words, but in this case it is an unjustified necessity. I will repeat my claims in the link you provided in response 67:
"First, Libet's experiments also point to a 'second result' according to which there is a conscious mental state that does not depend on a specific neural event 'previous in time', a state that cancels previous volition (which is claimed to be late in time to its constitutive neural event).
Second, and this is more important: indeed, as I hypothesized, the Libet experiments are flawed by a clear methodological failure. The finding on awareness is an exclusive function of the subject's voluntary report, and considering the reaction time required to report after the mental event has already happened, it is impossible to establish a reliable finding of early versus late. Furthermore, considering the incredibly short interval of the report (500 ms), it is likely that the mental event was simultaneous with the neural event, and in my opinion, considering the measured reaction time of the person in all kinds of contexts - it is likely that the mental event even preceded the neural event. In any case, due to the poor methodology, it is impossible to substantiate any findings.
Third, again as I hypothesized, Libet's experiments are blind to the realm of 'preparatory' desires, i.e. the desires in the pre-conscious stage. These desires, according to the article, are mental events. Thus, even if you accept (and of course I do not) that there is a short delay between the early neurological event and the conscious recitation - then the delay must be attributed only to the conscious recitation, not the unconscious recitation.
As for myself, I am not ready to commit myself to the hypothesis of an unconscious preparatory will, even though it is a mental state and it is very conceivable that it is not late to the neurological event. I also do not commit to the author's hypothesis that the unconscious volition prepares the 'action' or the decision, and another desire - conscious - indicates it specifically, even though this hypothesis may be consistent with Libet's first finding - and also reconcile Libet's second finding, in a way Which is consistent with our intuitions about free will and free action - and actually confirms them."
2.
The link you provided (Machal) in response 122 above is undoubtedly interesting, also because it proves what I have been arguing for a long time in debates with you (Machal) - that the issue of religious belief is not at all essential to the positions we may or may have on scientific issues.
Note that Prof. Sempolinski defines the prevailing position among most researchers on the topic of brain research - as a position of 'monism'. Such a position still does not amount to materialism. The things were not said explicitly by the esteemed professor, but according to the spirit of his words towards the end of the interview, it seems to me that his position may be a position of double revelation monism ('two faces of the same coin') as we have found in pantheists throughout history (for example - Spinoza), Believers' and non-believers.
Prof. Sampolinski talks about the apparent creation of a 'sense of intention or choice' (so!) using electrical stimulation of defined areas of the brain. In my understanding, what follows from this is that there are mental states caused by physical events. There is nothing new at all compared to common and well-known situations in which hallucinogenic drugs have an effect and plant in the patient a feeling that he 'wants' or 'intends' to say something. The only difference is that the principle is formulated this time by a senior neuroscientist, and the experiment in question seems modern and less routine than just a case of taking a drug.
In any case, from here to a 'conclusion' as if every mental state is necessarily a function of a physical state, and that the causal relationship between the two states is one-way - the distance is large and substantial, both logically and from a practical point of view, known to us from the most immediate sensations we have.
3.
Ra'anan: The series of lectures you rely on is certainly interesting, but in a scientific debate, and even it is at a popular level like the one that takes place here (and we have certain debaters with special powers of knowledge and argumentative ability...) we need to examine the evidence in order to relate to it. If you could elaborate on the matter, it would certainly be useful.
4.
Therefore, in my opinion it is too early to eulogize the existence of 'free will'. The issue is still open, from a purely scientific point of view.
Neuroscientists "determined" that there is no free choice...
This is similar to a flea riding on a dog's tail.
How do you think he perceives reality?
The series is called Brain Story.
Eddie:
Professor Susan Greenfield, who is a famous brain researcher in the UK, made a series for the BBC in which she talks about these issues. In the sixth episode of the series, Professor Michael Gazzaniga, who is a well-known brain researcher, says the things I wrote.
Eddie:
I do not accept the claim that there were methodological disruptions.
Besides - in the meantime - Tanan showed us another interesting link on the same topic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d35nFvb1Wh4&feature=channel_page
You can read my opinion on free will in comments 105 and 107 in this discussion.
fresh,
I want to go back to your comment 89.
You write:
"In the debate between determinism and free will, free will lost, humans do not have free will and this was confirmed by neuroscientists only recently."
I would appreciate it if you could provide the links to studies that prove in your opinion that there is no free will.
Michael,
Regarding your response 67:
It seems to me that from the review article that you cited there, the conclusion that arose from a careful reading of the article was that the Libet experiments were methodologically incorrect, and therefore do not constitute evidence on the question of free will (it is not certain that the measurements actually prove that the awareness of the physical event is delayed and is built on the physical process. On the other hand, the theory of pre-will was raised as an interpretive speculation by the author of the article, not as found, and other interpretations could also be put forward).
I think we agreed that Penrose's opinion is satisfied.
In the storm of the debate, it did not become clear to me what your opinion is after all about the essence of the 'will' as free' from a completely materialistic point of view. can you explain
Thanks for the reverse extraction.
Even if you understand and if you don't, just as every creature in general has an imprint-as their seal, a plan derived from the entirety of the entire prism of time to infinite eternity. The Great Nature also has an imprint cut from a deep or sublimely infinite derivative, which has within it the pattern of its natural characteristic: cycles vary according to His nature. Everything is interwoven with legal ties, the visible and hidden intertwined tools and everything ticks (pulsates) whether at unimaginable speeds up to clear and measurable speeds.
Any 'creature' or 'innate' or 'creature' or 'intelligent phenomenon' that recognizes and adapts to the changing waves of nature in which it is subject is able to survive more than a creature that has difficulty accepting the pattern of its body as a derivative of overlapping and combined derivatives.
And those who cut themselves off from the rules of a given natural law and insist due to some kind of disability (limits of ability) to adapt to a given and cut reality that strives for the rule of life, in the end is broken by the laws that support existence/universe/world/nature/and the spirit of life's beats.
Hugin,
Simply inaccurate, below is an exhaustive explanation:
Determinism is subject to the coastal will (consciously or not) of the inhabitants of the Bermuda Triangle. The cones of the dangling struggle with the radiation that emanates in condensation from the planet Mars, and he in turn, at a crossroads of world orders comes into contact with the Nephilim and the ancient gods. It is understood that the free will hidden in every atom affects the whole world, and challenges the insane science, while stretching its limits to infinity.
It is therefore clear that free will is not free as determinism, and the totality of the entire world must be seen to fully understand the amazing combination.
In fact, within the legality of 'fate': read 'determinism', there exist many corners or 'neutral' stations that allow creatures to think as if they have a lot of 'free will' subject and conditioned of course to the laws and rules of place, passage of time, culture, education and more but at points of 'accumulated essays' In the dangling cones of the rituals and cycles (blind or conscious) those who 'come in turn' meet at the crossroads, in a mass of intersecting factors that challenge them to recognize in repeated feedback, in an acquired conscious awareness, or as thunder on a clear day and then the person realizes that determinism is the one that dominates him even if not Knew it was encrypted.
All the trainings, learning and apprenticeships in life eventually lead to the same realization and its name is Fate: Rabbah Olam orders: Determinism: and any definition that even the great gods of the past could not escape from.
The patterns of the hidden code are found in every atom from the micro to the entire universe. The feedback depends on the time of the different wavelengths / the possibility of stretching them to the limits of their capabilities and capabilities, etc.
Michael,
I looked at the text you linked and watched Yaron London's video. I still maintain that randomness is no guarantee of free will, and determinism is no guarantee of its absence. Even if we assume that the universe is indeed deterministic, this does not mean that there is no free will. The assumption that there is a contradiction between determinism and free will entails the assumption that in order for free will to exist, there must be a "way out" from the laws of nature, which are based on a principle of physical cause and effect.
For example, I drop the ball and it falls. The reason is gravity. Is there a possibility that it won't fall? There isn't, so it's a deterministic situation. The ball did not have free will to decide not to fall, it is bound by gravity. This idea is thrown, unfairly in my opinion, on the human mind - studies have shown that there is a physical reason for a "free" decision, so it is not really free - because there is no possibility for physics to work differently, that is, for a decision to be made without being dictated in advance by the laws of nature (like that the ball did not "decide" to fall).
The conclusion from this is that if there was a possibility that the laws of physics were not involved in the decision-making process, or if the laws of physics were "flexible" according to the will of the decision-maker, then the decision would be truly free.
But such a belief contradicts physics as we know it - the laws of physics always apply. Even if there may be a situation where a specific law is not relevant, such as Newton's equations contained in spaceflight planning, while Einstein's equations would be relevant to describe this situation, it is still understood that physics has not changed. Our description of physics has changed, from laws formulated specifically to the law to laws formulated more broadly. Even when moving from a tiny scale (quanta) to an astronomical scale (relativity), the physics itself does not change - our description of the same physics changes, even when the different physics contradict each other. Note that in my analysis I did not address at all the question of whether physics is deterministic or random. It's just not relevant.
Therefore, anyone who defines himself as a matriarchalist should come to the conclusion that free will either does not exist, or that defining it as a type of magic (that is, an event not bound to physics) is irrelevant. I don't find the definition of free will as magic particularly helpful or applicable. I have no possibility to apply it to legal, ethical or other questions. I don't believe in magic, so I need a different definition of free will.
I offer the following definition: a free decision is a decision that the recipient was not manipulated into making.
Example manipulations: drugs (unless the decision to get high was free), coercion by force (actual physical force - chains, etc.), actual threats (if a person kills another because a gun was pointed at his head, he is not considered a murderer because he did not have free will), Hypnosis, the laser beam from Yaron London's video and a thousand other inventions that will be invented in the future. I believe you can extend this list as you wish.
Well done! And your hands are indeed raised in justice/as proof that you won even for 9.
:)seriously.
;) Thank you, thank you, thank you, go.
And now a question: Why were we asked to translate these sections precisely, for a given moment?: (The answer lies in the question).
Hugin:
2: Borrow money from a pessimist because he doesn't expect you to pay him back anyway.
6: The conscience is what hurts when all the other parts of the body feel great.
7: A clear conscience is usually a sign of a bad memory.
9: Anyone who believes in psychokinesis (moving objects using the power of thought alone) - raise my hand.
11: I almost had a girlfriend who could see the future - but she left me before we even met.
25: If you don't succeed on the first try - destroy any evidence that you tried
And a translation addition for 2 as well if there is a 'righteous' on the site..
And by the way - fresh:
When you say "there is no such thing as an "I"" you only do so because you have decided in advance that this "I" must be all conscious. Once you accept that part of the "I" is unconscious you can no longer claim it.
As soon as you also accept my claim (which is obviously correct) that the unconscious part can also be influenced by the mind, you will also be able to start taking responsibility for your words and actions.
fresh:
I do not agree with you.
You make statements without referring to the facts and there is no point in this type of debate.
Do you disagree that we learn to ride a bike even though the whole process is unconscious?
Do you disbelieve in the proven success of workshops to detox from violence?
Do you disbelieve in the effects of education in general (and education that is mostly conveyed through words always enters through the mind).
You did not address my claim at all.
Consciousness exists.
Sometimes she's really just rationalizing after the fact, but that's also a matter of self-education!
It is possible to avoid rationalization, to make a real analysis as well as of our actions, to draw balanced and informed conclusions and to influence our behavior in the future.
Please, someone can and is willing to faithfully translate the sentences: 6, 7,9, XNUMX from English to Hebrew?
And if possible also 25 and 11
Thank you in advance :) from the bottom of my heart.
Michal :
Nice jokes, it's a smart way to pass criticism.
The conscious cannot make decisions, it does not "choose", it only excuses the choices of the subconscious, so that we think that "I" chose, and so that we believe in the illusion that the choices are not a deterministic product of input, information processing process, and output.
There is no such thing as "I" and a person has no control over his life even though it really seems to him that he does and that he is willing to swear that he has control, just like a river cannot decide that it does not flow to the sea. The difference between a human being and an inanimate object is the ability of a person to delude himself that he has control.
Yachal,
Thanks! I liked! I distribute it at my work (great for a workplace that deals with research 🙂 )!!!
Especially suitable for:
25 - If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried.
26 - A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.
29 - To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many
is research.
As true as all this is... 🙂
fresh:
I just received the following text in my joke mail.
Number 26 is a bit related to the topic of our conversation so I used it as an excuse to present it all here because it's just nice.
If you're not familiar with the work of Steven Wright, he is the famous erudite scientist who once said: "I woke up one morning, and all of my stuff had been stolen and replaced by exact duplicates." His mind sees things differently than most of us do, to our amazement and amusement.
Here are some of his gems:
01 – I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize.
02 - Borrow money from pessimists - they don't expect it back.
03 - Half the people you know are below average.
04 – 99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.
05 – 82.7% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
06 - A conscience is what hurts when all your other parts feel so good.
07 - A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.
08 – If you want the rainbow, you got to put up with the rain.
09 – All those who believe in psychokinesis, raise my hand.
10 - The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the
cheese.
11 - I almost had a psychic girlfriend. . . but she left me before us
of.
12 – Okay, so what's the speed of darkness?
13 – How do you tell when you're out of invisible ink?
14 - If everything seems to be going well, you have obviously overlooked
something.
15 – Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm.
16 - When everything is coming your way, you're in the wrong lane.
17 - Ambition is a poor excuse for not having enough sense to be lazy.
18 – Hard work pays off in the future; Laziness pays off now.
19 - I intend to live forever. . . so far, so good.
20 - If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends?
21 – Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
22 - What happens if you get scared half to death twice?
23 – My mechanic told me, “I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made yours
horn louder.”
24 - Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?
25 - If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried.
26 - A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking.
27 – Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.
28 - The hardness of the butter is proportional to the softness of the
bread.
29 - To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from many
is research.
30 - The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard.
31 – The sooner you fall behind, the more time you'll have to catch up.
32 – The colder the x-ray table, the more of your body is required to
be on it.
33 – Everyone has a photographic memory; some just don't have film.
And an all time favorite –
34 – If your car could travel at the speed of light, would yours
headlights work?
fresh:
I thought so too when I first came across the testimonies but little by little I'm getting used to the idea and even ready to call it free choice (I haven't made a final decision and of course yours has your free choice in the matter. Is it free?).
The way I see it, decisions that need to be expressed immediately do indeed come from the subconscious, but if there is time then a reasonable person will go back and examine his decisions while taking into account the conscious considerations and he may change them.
Of course, here too, the decision will eventually come from the subconscious, but as long as the conscious part does not like the decision, it can "return it to the sender".
We should also take into account our ability to "tame" the subconscious and increase the likelihood that, at least in the field of training, it will make decisions that please our conscious part.
I guess everyone knows this but there are some examples that can illustrate the point.
Cycling is a continuous process of making unconscious decisions about tilting the body and changing the direction of the handlebars to maintain balance.
The fact is that we manage to learn to do this and even though at the beginning of the study our subconscious makes wrong decisions, at the end - through repeated practices that the conscious makes - it always makes the right decisions.
If the "free choice" is not conscious then it is not a choice, and not free, therefore there is no point in calling it that. We are controlled by our mind and not the other way around, as we feel.
light:
All mathematicians and physicists are philosophers. In my opinion, even the best of them.
I have already said that I do not share Penrose's opinion either, but it seems to me that you are not aware of the very serious studies that have been done in the study of consciousness and have almost completely disproved the existence of free will as we are used to perceiving it - that is, as a result of a *conscious* choice.
I suggest you read what is written in this link:
http://davidrosenthal1.googlepages.com/libet.pdf
and watch the video at this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d35nFvb1Wh4&feature=channel_page
Both things still leave room for free choice but negate conscious free choice.
fresh,
You have not yet answered my question - what does it matter if the universe is deterministic, if you have no way to predict with perfect accuracy? What are you actually trying to say, and what does the subject have to do with the question of free will?
Michael,
I don't know who Penrose is and I assume that he is indeed a talented mathematician and physicist, but objectively I assume that it can be agreed that his education and my skills as a physicist and mathematician have nothing to do with him being or not being an authority on the question of free will. This is a question that belongs to the study of consciousness, which is essentially biological and philosophical. I stick to my opinion that randomness is not a guarantee of free will, and in fact the question of determinism versus randomness is irrelevant. As far as I'm concerned, a person has free will if nothing has been forced on him, for example by drugs, hypnosis, etc. (there's no point in me making a list here that will surely fail in something). I don't see any other practical definition for the matter.
fresh:
Too bad you don't read what is pointed out to you.
Bell's theorem does not stand in a vacuum. It has meaning in the context of measurements that allow the properties of the particle to be measured without being able to claim that the impact of a photon on the particle, which was intended to measure one of the properties, destroyed the other because the measurement is performed on another particle that is at a distance.
I am surprised that I have to repeat what is written in the link I gave you.
Regarding determinism - you simply do not understand the meaning of the word in the context of the so-called deterministic interpretations.
For example - in the multiple worlds interpretation - the result of the experiment is deterministic in the sense that all possible results are obtained, but not in the sense you mean - meaning that the particle has properties that we cannot measure, but in the sense that instead of the wave function collapsing probabilistically - there is simply a split into many worlds.
In short - you didn't add anything. You just get hung up on the words and don't even try to understand them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics
Here is a comparative table between all interpretations of quantum mechanics, 3 interpretations assume that the universe is deterministic and 2 of them are agnostic about determinism.
fresh,
Bell's theorem contradicts the existence of ** local ** hidden variables, meaning a hidden variable that can be identified with the particle.
Bell's theorem does not contradict the possibility of the existence of ** non-local ** hidden variables, but this possibility seems improbable and illogical (but what does actually make sense in quantum theory?).
Michael:
You are wrong in a sentence that does not rule out the existence of hidden variables, but only in the context of the matter of effects, that is, contrary to the theory of the hidden variables which says that effects cannot move faster than the speed of light. Bell's theorem says that they are, and it makes Albert Einstein look bad. He does not deny that there are things that influence and we are not aware of them
You are missing something here...
If you are looking for a human like being then yeah maybe you are right
but alien life forms don't have to be carbon based or DNA based
intelligent life does not require earth like conditions
the only thing they need is liquid (not even water) so think again
about this theory of yours
liquid gas can also support life
and in fact water is a liquid gas
light:
1. The uncertainty principle is Heisenberg's and not Eisenhower's.
2. I also think that the connection between randomness and free will is tenuous, but since this is the opinion of Penrose, who is one of the greatest and most respected mathematicians and physicists today, I am not inclined to dismiss it out of hand.
fresh:
Your baseless insistence on the Uncertainty Principle is really amazing.
You should have understood by now that the fact that in the two-slit experiment the photon (like any other particle) can fight with itself means in itself that it has no definite place.
Beyond that, Bell's theorem rules out the existence of hidden variables (which is a more accurate way of saying what you're trying to say when you claim that we simply don't know certain data but that doesn't mean they don't exist)
I actually think that Wikipedia is an excellent source of information, but this is only true for Wikipedia and not for its pathetic Hebrew version.
Your understanding of the uncertainty principle is completely wrong and if you want to see what they say about the matter in the real Wikipedia you are welcome to read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle#Uncertainty_principle_and_observer_effect
fresh,
In summary:
Scientific determinism: If we had data about all the particles in the universe in a given background, combined with a complete knowledge of the laws of nature and sufficiently strong calculation powers, we could know future data about the universe at any future or "Hebrew" moment.
For example, if I know that a ball was above the ground a second ago, and its speed at that moment was zero, and under the assumption that only gravity acted on it, I know that now its speed is 9.8 m/s (assuming it has not yet hit the ground).
Uncertainty principle: it is not possible to know with perfect precision all the data about microscopic particles. The example with the sphere is valid, but examples with particles such as electrons would not be valid, because both their momentum and position cannot be measured with perfect accuracy. Therefore, we will never be able to know all the data about all the particles in the universe at a given moment, not for technical reasons.
The principle of non-recognition belies the idea that it is possible, in principle, to reach the conditions specified in the (abstract and flawed but concise) definition of scientific determinism. That is why I argue that they are contradictory. Is the explanation acceptable to you?
You mentioned that determinism does not contradict the uncertainty principle, because the mere fact that the deterministic laws cannot be known does not mean that they do not exist. Logically, you are right. But practical? What exactly do you intend to do with this position? After all, you know that there is no point in investing in trying to reveal these laws (because if you know what they are, you will be able to calculate data that you do not claim to know how to calculate according to the principle of uncertainty - that is, it is impossible to know what they are).
I explained *why* the uncertainty principle *doesn't* contradict determinism, you didn't explain why it does. You just pointed out that it is contradictory.
There is no doubt that the uncertainty principle is a property of the universe, I have no argument with anyone about it, it is obvious (to me) that it is a property of the universe.
post Scriptum. If you insist on relying on Wikipedia, I suggest you read the English entry of the principle of non-admissions on Wikipedia. There it is explained and emphasized that uncertainty is a feature of the universe, and that it will never be possible to "overcome" it with the help of any technological improvement or sophistication. Thus he contradicts scientific determinism.
fresh,
Consider your words before comparing me to religious preachers. The deterministic approach claims that it is possible to predict, through knowledge of the laws of nature, a future situation based on data about the current situation. Determinism claims that if we had data about all the particles in the universe at a given moment, valid laws of nature, and sufficient computing power, we could know what the state of the universe would be at any future moment. The uncertainty principle claims that this is not possible. This is exactly what I claimed in my previous response, and I was surprised to read your responses in which you did not hesitate to claim that I act in a manner similar to a religious preacher.
If you had read some of my comments on this site, you would know that this is not the case, and even if you hadn't, I would advise you to be more respectful towards the other commenters.
As for the topic at hand: if you're trying to convince someone here, you should quote from more authoritative sources than Wikipedia. The above issue is still controversial, and you are trying to present, using quotes from Wikipedia, a presentation according to which it is indeed agreed upon by the scientific establishment that science is capable of reaching all the answers, in contrast to the "followers of the new age" and "religious preachers". If you really believe in this world picture , you should hang it in slightly higher trees.
Even if the uncertainty principle meant that a particle has neither position nor momentum at a given moment (and it doesn't), it still wouldn't necessarily mean that there is no determinism, because who said that determinism needs such a small resolution to exist.
In light of:
A client from the value of the uncertainty principle
"It is important to see that the "uncertainty principle" does not refer to certainty or probability at all, but to the accuracy and resolution that exists in the physical world by its very structure"
"The principle is used a lot by the followers of the New Age in their goal to "prove" that science is not able to reach all the answers. In a similar way it is used by religious preachers"
And that's exactly what you do.
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A2%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9F_%D7%90%D7%99_%D7%94%D7%95%D7%95%D7%93%D7%90%D7%95%D7%AA
The uncertainty principle means that it is not possible to *know* the position and momentum of a particle at one given moment, it does not mean that the particle does not have a position and momentum at a given moment, therefore determinism is not hidden by this principle.
Therefore, if you think there is a contradiction, you are wrong and misleading.
There is no contradiction between determinism and the uncertainty principle, where did you get that?
Regarding paragraph 2, you are absolutely right.
In the debate between determinism and free will, free will lost, humans do not have free will and this was confirmed by neuroscientists only recently. The question now is only if there is absolute determinism or if there is "weakened" determinism, that is, determinism that has "absolute" randomness. I note "Absolute" randomness so that it is clear that it is not! "Apparently" randomness. Apparent randomness arises from our ignorance of the laws of nature (we do not know the laws of nature with perfect precision only in a certain approximation of them, when every scientific progress makes this approximation more and more accurate), And absolute randomness is a law of nature itself that creates randomness that by its very nature has no way of predicting even if we know all the laws of nature with perfect precision)
Some notes:
1. Anyone who claims scientific determinism is claiming in contradiction to Eisenhower's uncertainty principle. Anyone who wants to try their hand is welcome, but it is appropriate that they are well acquainted with the above principle (I'm sure it's easy to find information about it on Google Scholar).
2. The debate about determinism versus randomness does not concern the question of free will at all. Imagine a person whose actions are determined by a die. A die is rolled, and if the result is one then he acts this way, if the result is two he acts differently and so on. His actions are completely random, not deterministic, but there is no doubt that he does not have free will.
guest:
I answered as I did because I thought I detected unjustified arrogance in the words.
I'm glad to find out that I was wrong.
I completely agree with you on the claim that all predictions of the type described in this article are "jumping above the navel".
"anonymous:
Does your claim also apply to you or do you think that others are affected by it and you are immune?"
The claim also applies to me for the simple reason that I, like everyone else, learn things from other people and books and the problem is that when you learn something and don't discover it on your own, you have difficulty seeing or remembering the very assumption on which the theory is built after a certain time. So that the idea appears in the mind as almost a fact.
What I do try not to introduce arrogance into my knowledge because there is always the possibility that part of it is not true for various reasons and to start from a point of assumption of "I don't know" regarding various approaches.
Therefore, in the subject of the article, when you come to an equation of this type with so many assumptions based on knowledge that is relatively limited and does not have much experience, it looks like an attempt to say "I know" about something that you definitely cannot know, at least at the moment.
refresh
The formulation of the probabilistic laws for quantum physical phenomena derives from the experiment. You come and claim that the statistical formulation expresses ignorance of a deterministic mechanism that exists in dimensions so small that they cannot be measured. Your claim cannot be refuted - on the one hand, but also cannot be confirmed - on the other hand. With exactly the same logic, the deterministic mechanism of classical mechanics or classical electrical theory can be contradicted. How?
Well, a classic experiment can be repeated a large number of times and the results can be measured with a very high level of accuracy. You may be surprised (and maybe not) but the results obtained will not be exactly the same. How, then, can the differences in the results be explained, if the experimental conditions are equal? The common answer is "measurement error", but this answer is not the only possible answer and is not necessarily the correct one. For example, it is possible to claim with the same degree of logical validity that the classical deterministic theory is not really accurate and that it is only a fairly good approximation. In fact, the correct theory should
Add a small random component to the main deterministic component.
And so the deterministic theory that you believe in so much fell to her.
Many of them are ahead of us.
Today the sky is the limit, and maybe tomorrow the Milky Way will be the limit.
I'm an optimist, I believe we will find life outside the Earth within a few decades, somewhere in the limits of the solar system.
Everything we can't imagine, will happen.
By the way - if you are Bijumbom then what you wrote is definitely suitable for those who believe in the flying spaghetti monster.
That you didn't get the hint fits well into that picture.
anonymous:
Continue to hide and blaspheme behind the mask of anonymity.
I guess you are ashamed of who you are.
Michael R. (Formerly Michael
Tell me what changed the OTR from your past name to your current name"
Listen, man, you're crazy, even your joke about the macaroni monster blew me up all over here on the floor.
Walla! You are chatty, it's just a pleasure!
Noam: Your lips are dripping 'Drake'.
Definitive proof of the message of this article.
From what wave-frequency exactly are you sending us your nightly chatter?
Hugin
A representative in her own eyes of the youth and thousands of other families, enough already, have some mercy on us, please comment on another site and leave us alone.
Your burdensome and ridiculous presence on the science site does not add respect to you, and to us it adds a feeling of discomfort (which you should have felt) in the face of your endless ramblings.
Please, some consideration…
Michael Schmitt?
Do you know how lucky you are on the site? That you dance for us like a fascinating brainiac and we play flutes around you and apparently enjoy scientific amusements :)
Still, I would be careful and especially warn the youth of the site not to fall into the trap.
Like this, for the safety of our peace :)
One, two, three - experience 🙂
https://www.hayadan.org.il/other-life-not-likely-to-be-intelligent-0306091/#comment-222093
Michael
Hahaha you made me laugh in response 68 good joke.
Definitive proof indeed.
fresh:
You click with the right mouse on the time and date that appear in blue above the response and then select in the window that opens the option "copy link location" after that you paste the address into the text where you want it to appear.
Well, what did I say? He must not find out the truth, for now.
And Hugin:
You should really look at the link that Raan brought.
After all, you have a religious person who, because he studied and chose to obey the voice of reason, agrees with me and not with you or with the religious concept.
Michael:
How can you give a URL link that leads exactly to the specific response you want?
as you brought
I don't think there is anyone who believes in the concept of free will seriously once they understand what it means. Or at least not proud of having free will.
Desire = emotion. (All the emotions we know are the result of something)
Free=without reason=random=arbitrary.
The person who comes closest to maintaining the concept of free will is the madman, and even then his will is not random and there are psychological theories that try to explain it.
By the way, fresh:
The fact that Hogin is justifying you is another proof that you are wrong
fresh:
I did not claim that there is free will in the sense that we think there is.
On the contrary - even in this discussion I mentioned Libet's experiment and you can see more about it in the debate I had with Eddy.
The relevant part of the discussion started here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/mars-explorer-says-well-find-life-on-other-planets-within-10-years-0105094/#comment-216934
It's a shame that I didn't have the link you gave in that discussion because I would certainly have used it.
The described experiment is not at all related to determinism at the quantum level, although Yaron London (and not the interviewee) interpreted it that way.
It is related to the same phenomenon that I described in the above discussion that shows that our sense of free will is actually physical.
You may not have noticed but the word "Quant" did not appear at all in the entire interview.
Regarding the randomness - I am not wrong and I am not misleading, but I said that I know that I will not leave you.
You have already spoken with such confidence about much more far-fetched things.
Ra'anan is true, but Michael is 'forbidden' to 'know' this, for now.
And regarding free will versus determinism, get a link
Sit in the professor and he is even religious! Who says there is no God, free will is just an illusion of the mind, and all there is is absolute determinism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d35nFvb1Wh4&feature=channel_page
I have no problem with you continuing to claim that there is, but you are misleading people, and yourself.
fresh:
there is.
I know, however, that I will not leave you.
I've read the entry a number of times already, there is roughly no evidence of randomness that rules out the possibility of determinism.
fresh:
There is actually.
Read about Bell's theorem and the experiment involved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_theorem
Or, that those who are surveyed / and those who are measured tend to follow the many.. and those who flock to the surveys deceive themselves and the truth is hidden in the kidney, until the moments of truth:) = a statistical-scientific reality, tiresome and wrong fiction..
I think they call it: the laws of free choice:)+/- of the remnants of the snake path (not on us:)
Stone-Ner:
The definition you gave to the term "randomness" does not contradict the existence of determinism, therefore it is not randomness but apparent randomness.
And naturally, when they say randomness, they mean it in a sense that contradicts the possibility of determinism.
There is no scientist who has confirmed the existence of randomness in the sense that rules out the possibility of determinism.
refresh
The meaning of the term "randomness" must be understood, it is a matter of definition. The randomness in the physical experiment means that, if you repeat the same experiment twice but keep all the physical conditions unchanged, with a high probability, different results will be obtained for the experiment.
It is true that even randomness has a legality and it is a statistical legality.
The meaning of statistical law is that, when the experiment is repeated a very large number of times, a statistical law can be formulated that describes
and characterizes all the results that will be obtained in the experiment but still, regarding the single experiment, it is not possible to know in advance the result that will be obtained, from all the possibilities made possible by the statistical regularity. This is the meaning of the concept of randomness. The main characteristic of systems with random-statistical regularity is a large number a lot of components in the system being tested
that the number of measured components is greater, the accuracy of the statistical law increases, and vice versa, if the number of measured components is not large enough
The error of the statistical law increased.
This is, for example, the reason why the statistical predictions of the surveyors
In the elections, they are "inaccurate" in many cases (meaning a high % error), because the number of subjects in the survey (=experiment) is small.
Michael: Free will! Don't read!
Michael: What is this certainty that "there is randomness at the quantum level"?
Maybe this randomness is not real randomness but only apparent randomness, which stems from our ignorance regarding the reasons that cause this apparent randomness? The quantum world can also be completely deterministic.
Hugin:
I don't have the strength to read so many words to fish out some kind of meaning from them.
I noticed one question that showed that you discovered (just now?) that evolution does not claim that the "strong" survives (which is obvious because the dinosaurs, obviously, are probably the strongest creatures that ever lived here).
What anyone who has ever studied anything about evolution knows is that those who survive are those who are more successful in exploiting the environment they are in to produce more offspring.
Since the conditions of the environment change (among other things because of the development of the different creatures that make it up), then even the creatures that are most adapted to the environment are different in different periods.
Small correction:
"By chance" Darwin's book fell into my hands in the store, while I was looking for the book "Uncle Albert" that Tomer recommended to us and it sold out at the same time in the store,, and here is the species finder: Darwin does not write that the "strong" survives but the "gifted" who are capable, the question is Michael What is 'giftedness' and what? And what is a virtue, and how is it given or acquired at birth and/or also from generations, carried within the genes and gifted with the 'spirit'.
'Randomness' does exist, obviously and in that unfathomable 'moment' it apparently has no visible 'cause' or has 1001 ++ additional knowledgeable, scientific, etc. reasons, but the higher or more observant the charge of the purchased round, in the 'moment' A certain one realizes that there is an enormous "causality" into which many "random" "casual" causes are interwoven and merged.
'Free will' does exist: we may call it 'free instinct', as a 'motive for action', but as a person in the stainless steel goes through more and more causal circumstances and contexts, he already begins to understand that causality is a given but not final 'lawfulness', because all circumstantial The time in rounds/rituals return to themselves and change, but at a point it is already different.
Therefore, with all the insights, there is always a place that says: I am small, but I am curious to understand more and live the understandings better.
In any case, within the 'vast legality' there are laws (small and large) that apply to you and do not apply to someone else or others and there are laws that already apply to me and do not apply to others. But one thing is irreplaceable: the 'unfathomable spirit' that we breathe and live:[ A mind is vast and infinite - as a natural destiny {inherent-sealed} it will 'rise' and not 'fall'].
For the sake of full disclosure.
I heard the interview of "free will" as a physical property of matter-energy for the first time, about 25 years ago when I was a student, in the lecture of Prof. Yakir Aharonov at Tel Aviv University, in the concluding lecture at the end of the Analytical Electromagnetism course. At the same time, I must emphasize that this comment was made in a general context for the development of physical research for the future and not in a direct context for the material taught in the course itself.
point:
Free will is indeed an elusive concept and I have already pointed here to Libet's research on the matter.
However, I don't think your claim that all decisions can be explained is correct. It is a fact that different people make different decisions under conditions where all measurable components are the same (and unmeasurable things cannot be a basis for explanation anyway)
The feeling of free will comes from only one thing. And it is our ignorance regarding the processes that led you to want what you want. The fact that you do not know the reason for "why" does not make the desire to be free of reasons.
I have never seen a case of free will. For some reason the decisions were always explainable.
A. Ben-Ner:
Desire is a very complex phenomenon that originates in our nervous system.
It evolved as a result of natural selection (creatures that want what is useful to them and work to achieve it have a higher ability to survive).
The building blocks of nature have no desire because they have no purpose.
They are preserved and converted according to pre-known conservation and conversion laws.
There is randomness at the quantum level, but it is not appropriate to call it "will" even though it is "free".
Penrose suggests that our sense of free will is made possible by the randomness that exists at the quantum level.
Even if this proposal has a certain resemblance to what you propose, it does not (and in my opinion rightly so) attribute "will" to non-living beings.
Lavner: 'Free will' is a relative matter and conditional on the understanding of the laws and the vast legality given.
When you don't understand, 'free will' is not different at all, as a metaphor, from all the 'free radicals' that go around and 'make' names in 'nature' and in every 'thing' that is truly sacred to us, as breathing and living.
refresh:
Thanks for the link: although there are indeed 'leftovers' from our many civilizations from here!-Earth!! (like our rare planets)! which continue in 'other' and less accessible real-formations in space. (and are dying to live here again :)!);)
A little shout out to myself :)? Hanan 36, right! And many more good ones who understand interest.
I have a question for you as follows.
Relying on the assumption that we, the rational life on Earth, fulfill the following two conditions:
A. We consist only of physical matter and energy.
B. One of our features is the feature of "free will" which means that, under exactly the same given conditions, acting on two different people, it is possible that each of the two different people will make a different decision as to how to act in response to those conditions.
The following questions are asked:
1. Do the matter and energy that we call "still" also have the same property of "free will"?
2. Does the "free will" feature of us, the intelligent beings, not only arise from the "free will" feature of inanimate matter??
fresh:
What Shorchor suggests is one of many speculations.
To call it "insight" is more than an exaggeration.
To me - all attempts to calculate probability in such a vague situation are simply ridiculous and any publication of conclusions from these ridiculous attempts is charlatan.
For years now, whenever naive people throw out a claim that there are many other intelligent civilizations like us somewhere in space, I always bring them the above link
http://www.haayal.co.il/story_764
For them to understand that they are talking nonsense, I hope that the entire scientific community will accept Vershor's "new" insight.
@Biologi, in the end viruses need hosts to reproduce. A flu virus that damages its host too much will not be successful in the long run. And even in the long term there is a preference for influenza viruses that cause a weak disease. The situation between us and the flu viruses is a negotiation that has not yet ended.
anonymous:
Does your claim also apply to you or do you think that others are affected by it and you are immune?
Despite the denial, the tendency to think that you know more than you really do will remain forever
Because of the instinctive assumption that the basic assumptions are always true to the point of blurring them out as almost facts.
I mean, of course, the influenza virus.
Hanan 36, you touched the most and dear.
There are no words at this point.
Thanks.
Hanan, I think it's ironic that the human species, whose rapid evolution of technology is severely damaging the biosphere, is about to be severely damaged itself by a species whose evolution is simply faster.
Thank you, Michael and Noam.
Bijumbom:
This entity is called the Flying Spaghetti Monster, although recently it has been speculated that it is actually made of macaroni in alfredo sauce.
We dream of finding a trace of life in the vastness of the universe and at the same time we trample and destroy all forms of life
about our world
Where is our shame?
I would be happy to receive follow-up comments
Thanks
Get a theory that I thought of: and somewhere in the universe I believe that there are life forms more advanced than us that also follow us (perhaps constantly) but do not communicate with us apparently because of justified reasons and consequences that in retrospect will harm us. ideas, and new technologies, as a result of which we missed the opportunity to learn the same things ourselves and since we were "fed" we did not learn to "eat" ourselves and therefore (still in hindsight) we will miss lessons in our existence that we cannot go back and learn them, in the end the consequences we missed can lead us to more and more things that throw science even by-pass The parable of the culture standing before us. In short, if we knew about this, it would only cause harm, so they know about us, but they don't make us know about them on purpose, and it's good that
Haim:
Get our support from D'Malkuta Shud Shashashapinoza :)
biological,
Cold fusion in Israel:
http://www.energianews.com/article.php?id=2938
biological:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/ultra-dense-deuterium-may-be-the-nuclear-fuel-of-the-future-2205098/#comment-217682
Hanan and Yehuda - Yesssss!!!
You received approval and even support from His Holiness
Not pretty, what about me?
Hanan and Yehuda, please receive support from me for your vision.
Where did you write about cold fusion and the Energetic company? Now I heard on the news and this sounds to me the greatest news of technology since the discovery of fire.
Where did you write about easy fusion and the Energetic company? Now I heard on the news and this sounds to me the greatest news of technology since the discovery of fire.
to flatter,
"The problem starts when the starting points are wrong. Wrong starting points lead to wrong conclusions."
If only you would apply this sentence to your beliefs in intelligent life visiting here…
Is this starting point a hypothesis?
You are allowed to start from any hypothesis that comes to your mind, but from here only the facts have meaning. This is the essence of science. This is the Achilles' heel of the pseudoscience that I believe you represent.
Regarding the 100 years of flight:
I once heard that human knowledge doubles every 7 years. I don't know how real this number is, but you can calculate for yourself how much more we know today compared to the era of the Wright brothers' airplane.
All the best.
Sharon.
anonymous:
First of all - it is not at all clear that Homo Sapiens destroyed the Neanderthals and it is also quite clear that the Neanderthals were less intelligent than Homo Sapiens.
It is difficult, therefore, to "blame" Homo sapiens that the industrial revolution did not occur earlier.
With regard to transmissions in all kinds of ways that are different from electromagnetic radiation - I don't think it's likely that this will happen.
Unlike the ancients who used various natural phenomena without understanding them - our use of nature is based on an understanding of many of the mechanisms that operate in it.
We know - for example - about the law of conservation of mass and energy and in all the processes we observe in nature - we recognize exactly all the transitions between different types of energy and between energy and mass. It does not happen that any natural phenomenon ends in an inequality between the "mass-energy" entering it and the "mass-energy" leaving it.
If there was an unknown type of energy that we could create and use, it would be expected that in some of the reactions we see, conservation of "mass-energy" would not apply, because part of it was converted into the same energy that in the future they would know how to transmit through.
This does not happen, therefore it is very logical to assume that we know all the possible means of transmission.
The transfer speed of the transmitters also has a limit that does not depend on the nature of the transmitter.
Of course, there is a certain probability of discovering completely new phenomena that can be exploited for broadcast purposes, but this probability seems extremely low to me and certainly does not justify the disdain of various people for the achievements of contemporary science.
Some notes.
First of all, intelligent life on Earth could have developed 40,000 years earlier - if the Homo sapiens had not destroyed the older Neanderthals, it is possible that today's developed species would have preceded the discoveries of technology by thousands of years (the industrial revolution 5,000 years ago?).
Another thing, the arrogance and stupidity of looking for life in the universe with the help of radio... Friends, it's like Galileo would look for life in the universe by signs of interstellar pigeon shit, or the Maya would do it by looking for signs of interstellar smoke that the developed tribes would do. Humans started broadcasting radio 120 years ago. Before that, human civilization did not produce any transmission to outer space, and if in another 100 years a new communication technology is found, our radio bubble will be only 220 years thick. That is, it is enough to miss the ability to receive radio or broadcast by a few hundred years, and no one in the universe will have the ability to recognize us.
Now think of a civilization that is 10,000 years more advanced than us. What are the chances that she will look for a radio? How likely is she to use the radio? Kind of like how we'll look for signs of interstellar smoke now...
Noam,
With all the respect that can be acquired for your knowledge, there are other partners in the place who connect and understand interest and matter in their own way, their learning and their wisdom and there is no need to overburden.
Hugin,
What do you base your assumptions on?
Why don't you try to reason and explain, because otherwise it sounds like nothing more than a story, like it there are hundreds and thousands more in science fiction literature.
Even if life did develop on other planets, there is no guarantee that they would develop intelligence. Evolution has no destination, and intelligence is not necessarily the best way to adapt (in fact, intelligence can be anti-adaptive, if for example the human race destroys itself with nuclear weapons or any other means you can think of). Very specific circumstances are required for the development of intelligence - I will not elaborate more than that, but I will recommend to those who are interested to read "How the brain works" (translated into Hebrew) by Steven Pinker, a brilliant brain researcher. The book includes a chapter that explains why the development of intelligence is not trivial.
Personally, I think that the 'fallen' also originated from here, they evolved to a very, very distant,, and when they returned thousands of years ago to visit - a home in the 'cradle' of their Mother Nature, they took over and stuck to the bottoms,,,:) but This is another Alta-Atlantic story.
י
There is a 'belief' that our ancestors (a type of 'Nephilim') arrived 'somehow' here 'Aresh' = Earth, from the constellation Sirius / the Milky Way galaxy.
Let's say that some of us are originally from the 'local' nature that developed as evolution, but the 'fallen' are a type of voluntary or involuntary (fatal:) 'intervention' that changed the whole face of things.
If this is so, the remains of their balance may be found somewhere in dark space :)
to Arya Seter
Life on Earth developed in a number of ways and under different constraints.
Life exists in the depths of the oceans at a pressure of hundreds of atmospheres and a temperature of hundreds of degrees, and they also developed in the vast expanses of ice in Antarctica at a temperature of minus 60 degrees and a pressure of one atmosphere.
Considering the above data, isn't it possible for life to be created in a place where we don't think about it? Perhaps, precisely in the depths of the planet Jupiter where the temperature is constant and the expansive atmosphere protects the internal parts?
Everywhere our imagination is able to imagine a structure of life and if you multiply that by billions you get a reasonable possibility of life in other places as well.
What is the uniqueness of the earth that justifies life only on it?? There is no such thing! Water?, the space is full of hydrogen oxygen and on the other hand also water.
I believe it is impossible that intelligent life did not arise elsewhere in the universe and it was already done millions of years ago if not billions!
The radio transmissions will disappear in space already after a few tens of light years or at most, a few hundred light years, which means that the entire search can only be carried out in a very small part of the galaxy.
All the best
Sabdarmish Yehuda
As much as I like playing with probabilities. Often what comes in reality is what all the experts call in advance as "low probability". There is nothing like the wonderful randomness called life wherever it may be and in whatever form.
Humans have existed for more or less 150 thousand years...the universe has existed for billions of years...
It seems to me that this answers the question... there is a real chance that another Earth developed even 700 years before us and along with it a species of humans much more developed than us.
Think about what the human race will look like in 500 years... what will the technology be like...
To an "expert" professor from the 21st century, all of these will seem completely alien.
Just as a person from the Middle Ages who "landed" in our time will think we are crazy aliens with wireless headphones in our ears and other vegetables.
It should be remembered that the conditions we know for intelligent development do not allow
Living in a vast area around the center of the galaxies. Because of phenomena like radiation and collisions
between spatial objects. This figure greatly reduces the number of planets in them, according to
In our experience, it is possible to find intelligent life.
Hanan, where did you see someone write faith.
The idea that there is life, but maybe there is no more (or almost no more) intelligent life besides us, is a trivial idea. Even I, years ago, in my articles "Radio communication with extraterrestrial intelligence - reality or imagination" raised this possibility. Yehuda - we all want and dream of meeting with other intelligences, but the thought that there might not be any - is not arrogant. This is simply one of the possibilities and not because we think of ourselves as unique.
Hanan Sabat,
What are the right starting points?
What are the correct conclusions that follow from this?
Please explain
I believe that intelligent life in the universe exists, is widespread, and is vibrant. The means of communication between the different creatures is not radio, which is a primitive means of communication, but something else (quantum?),
I would like to refer the readers to the article I published here on the science website:- "The possibility of life on other planets - a thought exercise" In the article you can see that what you see from here is not necessarily what you see from there, and according to the opinion of other intelligent beings in the universe, the earth is not at all suitable for formation and existence Haim.
Apart from that, there is a reason for human arrogance in the decision that there is no possibility of life forming in the entire universe, but on our "Moshen" planet, life was formed in three different ways - the bacteria, the archaea and the eukaryotes.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Nice article.
I believe that we as a gentle human are missing something that will allow us to start the journey into space.
Just as the Indians didn't know about the wheel, so we don't know about anything that would allow us to reach out and start being real explorers of the universe.
We need a change of perception of man as a first step and a unification of forces so that we can advance to our next level as human beings.
We are just at the beginning of the road, so we need creativity, a change of mind and a lot of patience...
Nice of all the writers who added the verb "faith" because it all boils down to that.
Right now we know so little so what are we left with? Believe it or not!
And all the experts of their kind have a little modesty.
Hahahaha, it turns out that Einstein was really right about the lack of limits. The "studies" and "estimates" published in the news for critics are conclusive proof of this (and I'm not talking about the pretentiousness anymore, right?)
Sometimes I really wonder if we have reached the 21st century or if we are actually still stuck in the 17th century.
I agree with Hanan but understand the skeptics. I would never believe that an alien flying saucer or something similar would visit the earth for all the known physical reasons the speed of light from Einstein's articles and the like but I was lucky and I saw it was very close to the size of a football field and changed my perception of my world forever believe me Or not, it doesn't matter, I know what I and several other people have seen
I think the problem is narrow-mindedness.
The life we seek, the criteria by which we define intelligence, as well as our understanding of the space in which objects exist at all is horribly narrow-minded
Scientists today limit themselves and their imaginations only to what they have seen on this particular planet, according to very culture-dependent definitions of "insight", and in a space that we are currently only able to explore,
A space whose troubles were actually dictated to us by the way in which our ways of thinking and analyzing reality have evolved.
For example, there is a certain worm that, due to the conditions it lives in, has evolved to perceive a two-dimensional world.
We also evolved according to arbitrary conditions that were placed in front of us and this is why I think there is an overall picture of the "cosmic" reality that we are missing.
(And I don't mean mythical, religious and fantasy worlds, but really spaces that are beyond our ability to perceive)
I agree with the conclusion that the chance of finding developed civilizations in the universe tends to zero.
Amazing and fascinating. To think that we are the only ones in this huge place... I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years it turns out that it is precisely this starting point - of what kind of life to look for, that will lead us to fascinating discoveries.
Hanan,
It is interesting that you underestimate the fact that a professor of physics deserves to be called an "expert" for drawing conclusions and personal intuitions about the physical and chemical processes that led to the creation of life.
You can certainly suggest better "experts". I can guess that you are referring to some people who were abducted by aliens and given a course on life on other planets in a spaceship. They must be the real experts who learned from the alien masters.
Or maybe you mean those whom God spoke to and explained to them how he created the world in 7 days and man in a few minutes.
So Hanan, could you tell us who the experts on these subjects are in your opinion?
I'm always happy to hear about those "experts", who already speculate or know what's in the universe and what life forms will or won't be discovered, while they barely know what's on Earth...
I sometimes stand open-mouthed in front of those "experts", who already know whether and how intelligent life forms will be able to get here or not. It is amazing that we, the human race, who only 50 years ago put the first satellite into space and only 100 years ago flew an airplane for the first time, already know what the chances are for the development of advanced civilizations and what their chances are of finding us and reaching us...
The problem starts when the starting points are wrong. Wrong starting points lead to wrong conclusions.
Hanan Sabat
http://WWW.EURA.ORG.IL