What would you choose???

**CrazyCarl** · 06-25-2008, 01:35 PM

OH YEAH! Let's turn it on man!

Originally Posted by Just Charlie

I'm not approaching this from an ontological perspective, but just trying to make some clear distinctions between earth and the observable universe which help me reach a conclusion to the question of the thread. Ontological questions like "what is existence" are really a lot to get caught up in.

That's all good and well as long as it's purely from your POV. Some people like to draw distinctions, while other like to erase them.

[quote=Just Charlie;2245]Whether or not there's life on the far reaches of the universe (we don't know) is a matter outside of the scope of this topic, since I was establishing without doubt that you won't be encountering any life on an expedition into space...[quote]

That's a hasty assumption based on a personal believe or definition of what "life" and "living" is. The individual meaning we're applying to this massive word is likely at the root of our misunderstanding.

As a purely personal statement, to me, anything that changes is "alive" and certainly contributes to how I can "love" my motorcycle. Maybe it doesn't "see" in visible light or write books, but it exists as a necessary part of a greater dynamic making a forest as important to the Earth's ecology as a kidney in your body. Likewise, the fine collection of planets, suns, solar systems, galaxies and even the great "void" that keeps all things together which we NEED to survive (not getting very far without sun-light) are also in a sense "alive" as they constantly change states themselves and even relative "physical" position through "time".

Originally Posted by Just Charlie

... much less on a week long trip which wouldn't take you far at all speaking in universal terms.

In universal terms no, but in Earth terms it's more than you'd likely travel by airplane in one life time. 1orbit cycle = ~30mins x 24"hrs" per Earth day = 48 cycles/day x 7days = 336 times around this great globe of ours. Ick...I hate math.

Originally Posted by Just Charlie

Absolutely - we are different from the rest of the observable universe. While unanswered questions remain, as they do in all fields of science, our knowledge of the composition of the universe is substantial as you know.

That's where I'll have to disagree. We still get excited about finding interesting rock samples on Mars and have many mysteries left here on Earth. I see a Bumble Bee fly from flower to flower and then think that scientifically it shouldn't be able to makes me not sure how we could have "substantial" knowledge of something we only have miniscule access to.

The ranges of our finest sensing instruments is still limited, although capabilities seem to grow as more countries work together and technology marches on. For all this expensive equipment and cooperation, much of the knowledge of our universe is still speculation based on data which runs through heavy extrapolation and pointed (often politically) examination. Extrapolation itself is a highly fallible practice in science but is necessary because if our inability to test and measure hypothesis to infinitely finite degrees so is widely accepted.

Although I never have, maybe you've heard someone discuss how drawing a line on a graph to an imaginary point to create a new imaginary data point that has never been (and often can not be) tested contributes to the empirical value of science. If so, I'd honestly like to know more about it.

Originally Posted by Just Charlie

Interact with space? How does that work? In space, you're either 1: confined to a tiny ship, 2: floating aimlessly, or 3: walking on the surface of the moon (if you're lucky). Don't get me wrong, it offers a beautiful view and a unique chance that very few people have. Even with these significant virtues, does that compare to the countless experiences there are to be had on earth to flood every sense that humans have?

I see the point you are trying to make and I'm not saying it's false...just that it's personal. Suffice it to say that our experiences on, and attitude towards this planet (and the universe) are different.

Originally Posted by Just Charlie

I don't understand what impact craters on the moon have to do with this. They were created billions of years ago - the moon is a large dead rock.

..see previous comment.

Originally Posted by Just Charlie

You're approaching this from a philosophical perspective and defining some of these ideas in abstract terms which I am not, so I think there is some misunderstanding.

Sounds about right to me!

Originally Posted by Just Charlie

Since we're being grammar nazis I think you mean affecting my grammar! hahah what I meant is: We can observe conditions within the universe and discuss those celestial events with context, but no such context on how the universe fits into larger pieces exists. We can discuss events within our universe by observation, but a discussion on what happens outside the universe (which you alluded to by comparison) is without factual basis.

I'm not sure when I talked about anything outside our universe and there's been a huge question in the philosophy of Science (which yes, does have pertinence on the beliefs science generates) whether science has any factual basis at all beyond causal association and popular belief. This issue of pulling extrapolated imaginary data out of a hat and making it factual and "real" is only on minor example of this. I was talking about the limitations of understanding our world from within our own universes and how we perceive, deal with and evaluate life from within those limitations on an individual basis...at least that's what I thought.

Originally Posted by Just Charlie

Also the universe is not alive or organic. The idea that the universe has biological qualities (theoretical physicist Lee Smolin writes about this) is a fringe belief not accepted by cosmologists and Smolin himself says that the universe is not actually alive but might exhibit life-like qualities like heredity.

Again, semantics and one man's contemporary opinion. There are probably hundreds of thousands of years of religion/science/philosophy which might not agree with that...and let's not forget that in their respective times they were lauded by many as "true" then, only to be replaced or "superseded" later by the "theory du jour."

The reason why philosophy has so much import in discussion of scientific knowledge and belief is because the modern western scientific method (and belief) is borne from ancient Western philosophy (Aristotelian logic) and belief in reason and causal association (largely influenced by Socratic discourse).

The point is, if knowledge is necessarily temporarily and spatially limited (our "horizons", if you will) and put so much faith in only maybe 2000 years of accumulated knowledge (which has been heavily impacted by religion, politics and economy that entire time) it still totals to no more than a drop in the proverbial "bucket" as All Things Go.

Now to not fall in to complete solupsism, the trick is, what do we choose/want to believe is true? The line between belief and fact is very unclear.

Maybe the moon is a "large dead-rock", but only in as much as you want it to be. Again, others may think differently and don't necessarily live an intellectually impoverished life because of it: a little bit of magic does wonders for both the intellect and soul....at least to me.

CC

**Brain** · 06-25-2008, 06:40 PM

Gimme the plane ticket... Don't get me wrong - I would love the shot into space, but a lifetime of free travel anywhere I want to go? Can't turn that down!

If the parameters were different, like 2 years of free plane tickets vs. 1 week in space, then my answer would be very different.

**Jim** · 06-26-2008, 02:57 AM

I think I'm on Carl's side with this one, thats not to say I wouldn't love to see tons of the Earth, I just highly doubt that commercial airline travel is anywhere on my list of how I'd like to accomplish that.

**DScooterMan** · 06-26-2008, 04:55 AM

a trip into outer space to see the stars as they are, the earth and be able to say we really are'nt causing damage to the ozone , Because God is in control allways was allways will be . that would be the beauty of an outer space flight .

you can allways fly around the world , not in space, just have to watch for foam coming off the shuttle during re-entry