• Lucid Dreaming - Dream Views




    Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
    Results 26 to 43 of 43
    1. #26
      Member Achievements:
      Referrer Bronze Tagger First Class 5000 Hall Points Veteran First Class
      Jesus of Suburbia's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 2009
      LD Count
      192837465
      Gender
      Posts
      1,309
      Likes
      248
      Quote Originally Posted by tommo View Post
      Nothing is going to be too different from how life on Earth works. So yes I do have a fucking clue.
      And either way it's going to be really, really cold, even if it's not frozen, I really do not care. It would still be cold enough to not burn in the atmosphere.
      And again, Occam's Razor. Why would you assume that alien bacteria would not freeze?
      I didn't assume it wouldn't, I said you don't know that it would. You also don't know that it wouldn't be too different from life on Earth. Have you recently been in contact with life anywhere but Earth? Has anyone? No. So no one knows how ANY life ANYWHERE else works.

      Quote Originally Posted by LucidFlanders View Post
      Why would it not? space is pretty cold. Even on an asteroid, the rock is pretty cold also.
      Because it's possible that
      A) The freezing temperatures are lower on the asteroid and
      3) The bacteria ca withstand colder temperatures than life on Earth. See above quote.

    2. #27
      LD's this year: ~7 tommo's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2007
      Gender
      Location
      Melbourne
      Posts
      9,202
      Likes
      4986
      DJ Entries
      7
      Quote Originally Posted by Jesus of Suburbia View Post
      I didn't assume it wouldn't, I said you don't know that it would. You also don't know that it wouldn't be too different from life on Earth. Have you recently been in contact with life anywhere but Earth? Has anyone? No. So no one knows how ANY life ANYWHERE else works.
      OCCAM'S. FUCKING.... RAZOR!
      You're making WAY too many assumptions.

      We know that other planets are similar to ours.
      We know it would need some sort of DNA.
      We know that phosphorus is a component of DNA necessary for all life on Earth.
      We know that it would most likely be carbon based.
      We have no reason to suspect that it would be radically different.

      They may use arsenic instead of phosphorus, if arsenic is more abundant on the planet where they evolved, we know that.

      To say that it could be completely different is to assume too many things. It's useless.
      I could say that life on other planets could be plants with no brains but still able to think and move around and they eat rocks.

      But that would assume that an organism can think without a brain and get nutrients from rocks. Which would also assume that it is not based off the same components as all the living things that we know, and that the planet they live on would be radically different from Earth. Otherwise this radically different kind of life would not arise.

    3. #28
      DuB
      DuB is offline
      Distinct among snowflakes DuB's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 2005
      Gender
      Posts
      2,399
      Likes
      362
      Quote Originally Posted by tommo View Post
      They may use arsenic instead of phosphorus, if arsenic is more abundant on the planet where they evolved, we know that.
      Meh. That may not be so clear after all.

    4. #29
      LD's this year: ~7 tommo's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2007
      Gender
      Location
      Melbourne
      Posts
      9,202
      Likes
      4986
      DJ Entries
      7
      Broken link and can't find a full article anywhere. But it hasn't been dis-proven yet. From what I can see (half an article on slashdot).

    5. #30
      DuB
      DuB is offline
      Distinct among snowflakes DuB's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 2005
      Gender
      Posts
      2,399
      Likes
      362
      The link works for me...

    6. #31
      Member Achievements:
      Referrer Bronze Tagger First Class 5000 Hall Points Veteran First Class
      Jesus of Suburbia's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 2009
      LD Count
      192837465
      Gender
      Posts
      1,309
      Likes
      248
      Quote Originally Posted by tommo View Post
      OCCAM'S. FUCKING.... RAZOR!
      You're making WAY too many assumptions.

      We know that other planets are similar to ours.
      We know it would need some sort of DNA.
      We know that phosphorus is a component of DNA necessary for all life on Earth.
      We know that it would most likely be carbon based.
      We have no reason to suspect that it would be radically different.

      They may use arsenic instead of phosphorus, if arsenic is more abundant on the planet where they evolved, we know that.

      To say that it could be completely different is to assume too many things. It's useless.
      I could say that life on other planets could be plants with no brains but still able to think and move around and they eat rocks.

      But that would assume that an organism can think without a brain and get nutrients from rocks. Which would also assume that it is not based off the same components as all the living things that we know, and that the planet they live on would be radically different from Earth. Otherwise this radically different kind of life would not arise.
      I'm not assuming they're completely different, I'm saying you don't know whether they are or not. There's not one reason to believe they are, there's not one reason to believe they aren't.

    7. #32
      LD's this year: ~7 tommo's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2007
      Gender
      Location
      Melbourne
      Posts
      9,202
      Likes
      4986
      DJ Entries
      7
      I just outlined over 100 reasons why they wouldn't be much different. I'm outta here. Learn about science or stay out of the science section.

    8. #33
      Drivel's Advocate Xaqaria's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2007
      LD Count
      WhoIsJohnGalt?
      Gender
      Location
      Denver, CO Catchphrase: BullCockie!
      Posts
      5,589
      Likes
      930
      DJ Entries
      9
      Quote Originally Posted by tommo View Post
      Occam's Razor isn't really "the simplest explanation is usually correct".
      It's "the theory that explains the given phenomena while making the least new assumptions is more likely to be correct."
      For example, we have a meteor with bacteria on it.
      It could be bacteria from Earth.
      - We know there is bacteria on Earth.
      - This meteor was found on Earth.

      It could be bacteria from somewhere else in space.
      - We don't know whether bacteria is anywhere else in space.
      - Meteors usually come from belts in space, not planets, so it is far fetched to assume one hit Earth, out of all the places it could have gone after being knocked off a planet.

      As you can see, the second hypothesis makes more assumptions and is least likely to be correct. It's not really a thing for simple minds and that is a very simple minded thing to say frankly.
      Because I don't like anyone invoking occam's razor since nobody seems to get it, lets clarify. The statement "A meteorite was found with bacteria fossils in it" has two assumptions, that a meteorite was found and that there was bacteria fossils in it. The statement "a meteorite was found with bacteria fossils in it and the bacteria is extraterrestrial in origin." has 3 assumptions (was found, has bacteria fossils, from space), and is less likely to be true. The statement "a meteorite was found with bacteria fossils in it and the bacteria is terrestrial in origin." has 3 assumptions and is less likely to be true (than the first statement). Neither of these assumptions (space, earth) is more or less likely than the other, even if one is more "plausible". Occam's razor literally only addresses the number of assumptions.

      Take the statements, "That man's name is bill and he is wearing a blue shirt", or "that man is wearing a blue shirt." The second is most likely to be true because it makes one less assumption, regardless of what you know or do not know about the situation, that is just the way it is.


      I'd also like to mention that this discovery, true or not, has no bearing on panspermia as the finding was of fossils, and not actual bacteria.

      Edit: I would also like to point out since no one has yet; its possible that the meteorite was not contaminated but that the bacteria fossils are still of terrestrial origin. The meteorite could be a by-product of the theorized collision of earth and a mars size planet that became the moon that has been orbitting the sun for billions of years and has recently returned to this planet. I personally think this is the most likely possibility because, how do you contaminate a meteorite with bacteria fossils? Fossils are made of the rock they are found in so it would be plainly obvious if they were composed of a different rock. Regardless of whether there is life out there or not (there is) the chances of some errant meteorite from another solar system flying billions of light years through empty space and ending up on the planet earth are laughably and unimaginably remote.
      Last edited by Xaqaria; 03-11-2011 at 05:13 AM.

      The ability to happily respond to any adversity is the divine.
      Art
      Dream Journal Shaman Apprentice Chronicles

    9. #34
      LD's this year: ~7 tommo's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2007
      Gender
      Location
      Melbourne
      Posts
      9,202
      Likes
      4986
      DJ Entries
      7
      I don't know if you are arguing against my example of Occam's Razor.
      But I don't really see how my example differs much from yours.
      Maybe you were just clarifying what I said.

    10. #35
      Drivel's Advocate Xaqaria's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2007
      LD Count
      WhoIsJohnGalt?
      Gender
      Location
      Denver, CO Catchphrase: BullCockie!
      Posts
      5,589
      Likes
      930
      DJ Entries
      9
      clarifying, but also saying that claiming that the fossils come from earth is also an assumption and that occam's razor has nothing to do with plausibility.

      The ability to happily respond to any adversity is the divine.
      Art
      Dream Journal Shaman Apprentice Chronicles

    11. #36
      LD's this year: ~7 tommo's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2007
      Gender
      Location
      Melbourne
      Posts
      9,202
      Likes
      4986
      DJ Entries
      7
      Oh ok. Well, I think it does. Because it says the fewest NEW assumptions. Saying it came from another planet or asteroid assumes there is bacteria there.
      Saying it came from Earth assumes there is bacteria on Earth. Which we are pretty sure there is.

    12. #37
      Dismember Achievements:
      1000 Hall Points Veteran First Class
      SnakeCharmer's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 2009
      Gender
      Location
      The river
      Posts
      245
      Likes
      41
      Quote Originally Posted by Xaqaria View Post
      Because I don't like anyone invoking occam's razor since nobody seems to get it, lets clarify. The statement "A meteorite was found with bacteria fossils in it" has two assumptions, that a meteorite was found and that there was bacteria fossils in it. The statement "a meteorite was found with bacteria fossils in it and the bacteria is extraterrestrial in origin." has 3 assumptions (was found, has bacteria fossils, from space), and is less likely to be true. The statement "a meteorite was found with bacteria fossils in it and the bacteria is terrestrial in origin." has 3 assumptions and is less likely to be true (than the first statement). Neither of these assumptions (space, earth) is more or less likely than the other, even if one is more "plausible".
      Actually, that statement has more assumptions, but they are hidden. For example, it assumes that there are extraterrestrial bacteria.

      But that's really beside the point. All I see in this thread is people arguing about the origin of the bacteria in the meteorite. The important thing is that there were no bacteria found in the meteorite. Only thing found in that meteorite are the rock structures that appear organic.

      So, let's wait for evidence that these structures do come from bacteria, and then we can discuss whether it's a contamination (as it proved to be in the past) or an alien life form.

    13. #38
      Member Achievements:
      Referrer Bronze Tagger First Class 5000 Hall Points Veteran First Class
      Jesus of Suburbia's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 2009
      LD Count
      192837465
      Gender
      Posts
      1,309
      Likes
      248
      Quote Originally Posted by Xaqaria View Post
      Because I don't like anyone invoking occam's razor since nobody seems to get it, lets clarify. The statement "A meteorite was found with bacteria fossils in it" has two assumptions, that a meteorite was found and that there was bacteria fossils in it. The statement "a meteorite was found with bacteria fossils in it and the bacteria is extraterrestrial in origin." has 3 assumptions (was found, has bacteria fossils, from space), and is less likely to be true. The statement "a meteorite was found with bacteria fossils in it and the bacteria is terrestrial in origin." has 3 assumptions and is less likely to be true (than the first statement). Neither of these assumptions (space, earth) is more or less likely than the other, even if one is more "plausible". Occam's razor literally only addresses the number of assumptions.
      That's not an assumption :\

    14. #39
      LD's this year: ~7 tommo's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2007
      Gender
      Location
      Melbourne
      Posts
      9,202
      Likes
      4986
      DJ Entries
      7
      It sort of is. It could have been a normal rock on the ground. But we'll assume they aren't lying.
      So yeah, not an assumption.

    15. #40
      Member Achievements:
      Referrer Bronze Tagger First Class 5000 Hall Points Veteran First Class
      Jesus of Suburbia's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 2009
      LD Count
      192837465
      Gender
      Posts
      1,309
      Likes
      248
      Quote Originally Posted by tommo View Post
      It sort of is. It could have been a normal rock on the ground. But we'll assume they aren't lying.
      So yeah, not an assumption.
      I wouldn't call it an assumption that they're not lying. It's hardly possible they just decided to tell us this was from space, even before the supposed bacteria fossils were found. There have been tons of space rocks, why lie about this particular one?

    16. #41
      Rational Spiritualist DrunkenArse's Avatar
      Join Date
      May 2009
      Gender
      Location
      Da Aina
      Posts
      2,941
      Likes
      1092
      Pretty much all that I see from both of you on this thread is assumptions...
      Previously PhilosopherStoned

    17. #42
      LD's this year: ~7 tommo's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2007
      Gender
      Location
      Melbourne
      Posts
      9,202
      Likes
      4986
      DJ Entries
      7
      Haha I know, that's why I added another one in my last post, I realised this thread is just assumptions.
      Jesus, Of course it's a fucking assumption, you don't know for sure whether they found it and it is from space or not.
      Everyone is always assuming, you can't know with 100% certainty.

      Unsubscribed. This is getting ridiculous.

    18. #43
      Member Achievements:
      Referrer Bronze Tagger First Class 5000 Hall Points Veteran First Class
      Jesus of Suburbia's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 2009
      LD Count
      192837465
      Gender
      Posts
      1,309
      Likes
      248
      Quote Originally Posted by tommo View Post
      Haha I know, that's why I added another one in my last post, I realised this thread is just assumptions.
      Jesus, Of course it's a fucking assumption, you don't know for sure whether they found it and it is from space or not.
      Everyone is always assuming, you can't know with 100% certainty.

      Unsubscribed. This is getting ridiculous.
      If you "can't know with 100% certainty" than why are you claiming your assumptions are superior to my assumptions?

    Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

    Similar Threads

    1. Sideways Attention Technique
      By SKA in forum Attaining Lucidity
      Replies: 4
      Last Post: 02-11-2007, 01:03 AM
    2. I put my head back in sideways
      By mattthew in forum Lucid Experiences
      Replies: 5
      Last Post: 05-19-2005, 11:59 AM

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •