Org Mobile Site
Thread: Christianity vs UFOs
Universe is infinite, check. Density is finite (perhaps not at big bang), check. I knew that, but I didn't know that matter was considered to be infinite.
Please correct me if I'm wrong in this next paragraph, though I'm familiar with physics I'm not familiar with astrophysics so I might say things which might be commonly known to be wrong, but here goes anyway:
I'm not sure that the existence of infinite matter is an obvious next step for the physicist. It seems to me the universe has to be infinite almost by definition, since the universe is not defined by anything more than our three(/four) dimensions. I don't see the next step (saying that matter is therefore infinite) as obvious. Is it then thought that there was infinite energy in the Big Ban? As I'm sure you appreciate there's an awfully big difference between a very very large amount of matter and an infinite quantity. That was the essence of my previous argument: we must not be so daunted by the size of the universe as to apply arguments which are only valid when considering infinite systems.
).
My point was that if the number of planets is finite, however large it is we cannot make any reasonable or logical conclusions as the the likelihood of the existence of other intelligent life. We cannot conclude that it is unlikely, but more importantly a large universe (however large) is not sufficient to make the existence of other intelligent likely. This is an argument which I've heard put forward a lot, most often in the form "The universe is really really big therefore there must be intelligent aliens". This is the argument which I'm saying is flawed.
As to it being mind numbing, the possibility of us being the only intelligent life-forms in a finite number of planets is not nearly as mind numbing as a universe with infinite mass
Please correct me if I'm wrong in this next paragraph, though I'm familiar with physics I'm not familiar with astrophysics so I might say things which might be commonly known to be wrong, but here goes anyway:
I'm not sure that the existence of infinite matter is an obvious next step for the physicist. It seems to me the universe has to be infinite almost by definition, since the universe is not defined by anything more than our three(/four) dimensions. I don't see the next step (saying that matter is therefore infinite) as obvious. Is it then thought that there was infinite energy in the Big Ban? As I'm sure you appreciate there's an awfully big difference between a very very large amount of matter and an infinite quantity. That was the essence of my previous argument: we must not be so daunted by the size of the universe as to apply arguments which are only valid when considering infinite systems.
Originally Posted by :
Do you still say intelligent life is unlikely, or even that our model is flawed? It would be mind-numbing if we were the only ones out there. As I said, only the existence of God could explain the absence of intelligent life in places other than Earth.
Well if the number of potential inhabitable planets is truly infinite (something I'm naturally dubious about) and there is some non zero probability that a planet supports intelligent life then, as I said, the logical conclusion is that there is an infinite number of intelligent species 'out there'. The only explanation for intelligent life being truly unique to earth would be some external force (which we can call God if you like Do you still say intelligent life is unlikely, or even that our model is flawed? It would be mind-numbing if we were the only ones out there. As I said, only the existence of God could explain the absence of intelligent life in places other than Earth.
).My point was that if the number of planets is finite, however large it is we cannot make any reasonable or logical conclusions as the the likelihood of the existence of other intelligent life. We cannot conclude that it is unlikely, but more importantly a large universe (however large) is not sufficient to make the existence of other intelligent likely. This is an argument which I've heard put forward a lot, most often in the form "The universe is really really big therefore there must be intelligent aliens". This is the argument which I'm saying is flawed.
As to it being mind numbing, the possibility of us being the only intelligent life-forms in a finite number of planets is not nearly as mind numbing as a universe with infinite mass
Well this has prompted me to read a bit about the nature of the universe and boy does it get complicated very quickly. If you thought the concept of an infinite universe as tricky, what about a finite universe with no boundaries? That seems to be one of three possibilities if I'm understanding what I'm reading.
Here's a comment from another internet user which I found interesting:
Here's a comment from another internet user which I found interesting:
Originally Posted by :
As I understand the physics of space-time (and IANAP), the universe is not thought to be infinite, properly speaking. It is thought to be finite but unbounded. That is, there is a finite amount of space, but no boundary to it. You cannot reach the edge of the universe, beyond which would lie some metaphysical no-man's land, I guess. Space-time bends back on itself in other spatial dimensions of the manifold. In other words, think of peeling off the surface of a globe and laying it flat on a table. It would be a finite amount of 2-dimensional space on the table before you. Now take it and wrap it around the globe again; it is still a finite amount of space, but it has no boundaries because it has been wrapped back upon itself in three dimensions. Likewise, if you think of the three dimensions of space-time we are accustomed to experiencing being wrapped back upon themselves in a fourth dimension of the manifold, you could have a finite amount of space with no boundaries. Not that you could reach any such boundary anyway; you'd have to have been traveling the speed of light since the Big Bang just to catch up with the expansion. And you're certainly going to fit only a finite amount of matter into a finite amount of space.
Really interesting stuff. I will try to read more and see if general opinion agrees with this guy, but if it does I stand by what I said at the start: there is no way we can state that it is likely that other intelligent life forms exist As I understand the physics of space-time (and IANAP), the universe is not thought to be infinite, properly speaking. It is thought to be finite but unbounded. That is, there is a finite amount of space, but no boundary to it. You cannot reach the edge of the universe, beyond which would lie some metaphysical no-man's land, I guess. Space-time bends back on itself in other spatial dimensions of the manifold. In other words, think of peeling off the surface of a globe and laying it flat on a table. It would be a finite amount of 2-dimensional space on the table before you. Now take it and wrap it around the globe again; it is still a finite amount of space, but it has no boundaries because it has been wrapped back upon itself in three dimensions. Likewise, if you think of the three dimensions of space-time we are accustomed to experiencing being wrapped back upon themselves in a fourth dimension of the manifold, you could have a finite amount of space with no boundaries. Not that you could reach any such boundary anyway; you'd have to have been traveling the speed of light since the Big Bang just to catch up with the expansion. And you're certainly going to fit only a finite amount of matter into a finite amount of space.
Originally Posted by Myrddraal:
thought that there was infinite energy in the Big Ban?
Damn, am I getting perma-banned again? Frack, I knew I should not have been such a smart-mouth thought that there was infinite energy in the Big Ban?
P.S. I think I will get to a real reply out, Myrddraal if carpal tunnel has not killed me from spending the whole day in the Backroom - a busy day this was
EDIT: your name is not helping my carpal tunnel
Originally Posted by Myrddraal:
I'm not sure that the existence of infinite matter is an obvious next step for the physicist. It seems to me the universe has to be infinite almost by definition, since the universe is not defined by anything more than our three(/four) dimensions. I don't see the next step (saying that matter is therefore infinite) as obvious. Is it then thought that there was infinite energy in the Big Ban? As I'm sure you appreciate there's an awfully big difference between a very very large amount of matter and an infinite quantity. That was the essence of my previous argument: we must not be so daunted by the size of the universe as to apply arguments which are only valid when considering infinite systems.:
Any part of an infinity can be broken into what we would say for want of a better word a smaller infinity it is however correct to call this infinity also.I'm not sure that the existence of infinite matter is an obvious next step for the physicist. It seems to me the universe has to be infinite almost by definition, since the universe is not defined by anything more than our three(/four) dimensions. I don't see the next step (saying that matter is therefore infinite) as obvious. Is it then thought that there was infinite energy in the Big Ban? As I'm sure you appreciate there's an awfully big difference between a very very large amount of matter and an infinite quantity. That was the essence of my previous argument: we must not be so daunted by the size of the universe as to apply arguments which are only valid when considering infinite systems.:
The problem with inifinity is that it bends & breaks other conventions. IOW: it is possible to fit inifinitely many things on a finite space:
Consider this mapping (excuse the lack of proper Mathematical notation):
f= [ x/(1 + |x|) | x<-R]
This fits maps all numbers in the set of Real numbers (cardinality: c, i.e. the continuum, i.e. 2^N with N the aleph-nought, i.e. the cardinality of the powerset of the set of all natural numbers) unquely onto the interval [-1,1]. This mapping is bijective: for every x in R there is only one f(x) (injectivity/one-to-one); and for every y in f there is an x such that f(x) is y (surjectivity/onto).
Thus: there are as many Real numbers between [-1,1] as there are Real numbers at all!
Change the 1 to 0.5 and the same magic shows that the same thing holds for [-0.5, 0.5]. Change 1 to any finitely small number as you wish it will still hold. But as we know the interval [-1,1] is very much finitely large.
Consider this mapping (excuse the lack of proper Mathematical notation):
f= [ x/(1 + |x|) | x<-R]
This fits maps all numbers in the set of Real numbers (cardinality: c, i.e. the continuum, i.e. 2^N with N the aleph-nought, i.e. the cardinality of the powerset of the set of all natural numbers) unquely onto the interval [-1,1]. This mapping is bijective: for every x in R there is only one f(x) (injectivity/one-to-one); and for every y in f there is an x such that f(x) is y (surjectivity/onto).
Thus: there are as many Real numbers between [-1,1] as there are Real numbers at all!
Change the 1 to 0.5 and the same magic shows that the same thing holds for [-0.5, 0.5]. Change 1 to any finitely small number as you wish it will still hold. But as we know the interval [-1,1] is very much finitely large.
Yes this is all true, but also all beside the point. Cardinality is an interesting topic in itself, but not really relevant to the problem of mass. Mass is measured as a real number of kilograms. All this stuff about cardinality has nothing to do with whether the mass of the universe is finite or infinite.
{And before somebody pipes in and says something about mass being flexible and mass/energy equivalence, that's also beating about the bush)
{And before somebody pipes in and says something about mass being flexible and mass/energy equivalence, that's also beating about the bush
)I am not too sure whether or not it is. At the lowest level particles stop being continuous process and swap for a more discrete nature. And it is some of these particles which constitute the building blocks for “mass” (which is really just how much gravitational pull you generate; just like charge (Q) is really how much electric field you generate). And there are other issues with how many dimensions actually exist (11 is a promising candidate for instance).
About finite or infinite universe, remember time is a factor. Planets and whole systems collide, break apart, create new stars and planets. So you don't really need an infinite amount of mass to have an infinite universe, or rather, an infinite number of possibilities when it comes to evolving sentient life.
Then, when it comes to star-travelling species, time becomes less of a factor. For them to be able to reach us, you almost will have to strike time from the equation. They might have been looking for soemthing like us for billions of years by now! As has been mentioned, time is a big factor when it comes to civilazations. But then, if a society evolved past its planet, or star system, there would be very little stopping them.
When it comes to hostility, it's very hard to guess. Maybe we are the first race tehy encounter? maybe they encountered millions of races before?
Maybe they even fought an interstellar war or two allready and are now very centered on never letting it happen again.
However, the fact we aren't whiped out IF any other species knows about us, says a lot about their hostile level.
About them being something like us... We just need to have a look at our own world to see the possibilities of life he could be more sentient.
Ants, as an example... Hundreds of drones for every queen, the queen being the only sentient life... If you add genetical engineering to ants allready impressive genetic abilities in creating various offspring, we could have a race with very specialised individuals (if individuals would be the right word).
But to get the church into this, could the church cope with a handfull of ant-alikes suddenly visiting us? Or would it be the end of religion as we know it?
Then, when it comes to star-travelling species, time becomes less of a factor. For them to be able to reach us, you almost will have to strike time from the equation. They might have been looking for soemthing like us for billions of years by now! As has been mentioned, time is a big factor when it comes to civilazations. But then, if a society evolved past its planet, or star system, there would be very little stopping them.
When it comes to hostility, it's very hard to guess. Maybe we are the first race tehy encounter? maybe they encountered millions of races before?
Maybe they even fought an interstellar war or two allready and are now very centered on never letting it happen again.
However, the fact we aren't whiped out IF any other species knows about us, says a lot about their hostile level.
About them being something like us... We just need to have a look at our own world to see the possibilities of life he could be more sentient.
Ants, as an example... Hundreds of drones for every queen, the queen being the only sentient life... If you add genetical engineering to ants allready impressive genetic abilities in creating various offspring, we could have a race with very specialised individuals (if individuals would be the right word).
But to get the church into this, could the church cope with a handfull of ant-alikes suddenly visiting us? Or would it be the end of religion as we know it?
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV:
But to get the church into this, could the church cope with a handfull of ant-alikes suddenly visiting us? Or would it be the end of religion as we know it?
My gut feeling is proof of alien life be it the advanced space faring or some kind of space cabbage from Zeta Reticuli will only prove to be minor a inconvienience to religon. These kinds of people are used to taking the long view especially the Vatican which prides itself on its longevity probably.But to get the church into this, could the church cope with a handfull of ant-alikes suddenly visiting us? Or would it be the end of religion as we know it?
Most people do not spend a whole lot of time thinking about these questions so there world view is unlikely or maybe that should be less likely to change with this being proved. Religons in the USA will likely split into two camps relatively quickly of an anti and pro nature given the cash generation potential from either position they will be relaeasing statements with blindling speed. The Vatican and Anglican world will naturally release a bland meaningless statement after probably a week or two of consultation within there respective religions which is likely to touch on the new testament ideas about spreading the gospel to others etc etc Islam will have no problems it is human politics that will have the problem.
Thread Ratings provided by
Thread Ratings (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO