New earth-like planet discovered
- Thread starter durabone
- Start date
Buddy
The Living Force
That is interesting. Since the C's advise to learn to think in unlimited possibilities, I tend to think that there is no reason to assume any limit on the number of Earth-like planets 'out there' somewhere.
What I found even more interesting about that web page is a link to another page on statistics (which turned out to be other than what I was thinking it would be about):
The simple truth about statistics
_http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2010/sep/29/statistics-lies-abuse
...which contained a link to another page with an interview of physicist Vlatko Vedral:
Now, as I see it, Information Theory entropy and Thermodynamic Energy entropy has already been discovered as equivalent expressions of the same thing (Myron Tribus and L. Costa de Beuregard) and now we have Vedral making the 'information' link with Quantum Mechanics (has this already been done elsewhere?).
Vedral mentions Claude Shannon's Information Theory and makes the link to Quantum Mechanics by pointing out Shannon's idea that when you strip from the concept of communication, all unnecessary or redundant stuff, what is left can be thought of as the essence or key to "communicating information" and can be described as "expressing a [particular] probability".
What I found most interesting is the idea that all this suggests (at least to me) that perhaps we are not too far away from discovering how to connect to the data network of the Universe-as-quantum-computer somewhat like how we connect to the internet today.
Interesting indeed (unless I'm misunderstanding something)! :)
Edit: changed "the act of communicating a [particular] probability" to "expressing a [particular] probability" because defining a word with the same word is just circular thinking and not very helpful.
What I found even more interesting about that web page is a link to another page on statistics (which turned out to be other than what I was thinking it would be about):
The simple truth about statistics
_http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2010/sep/29/statistics-lies-abuse
...which contained a link to another page with an interview of physicist Vlatko Vedral:
Now, as I see it, Information Theory entropy and Thermodynamic Energy entropy has already been discovered as equivalent expressions of the same thing (Myron Tribus and L. Costa de Beuregard) and now we have Vedral making the 'information' link with Quantum Mechanics (has this already been done elsewhere?).
Vedral mentions Claude Shannon's Information Theory and makes the link to Quantum Mechanics by pointing out Shannon's idea that when you strip from the concept of communication, all unnecessary or redundant stuff, what is left can be thought of as the essence or key to "communicating information" and can be described as "expressing a [particular] probability".
What I found most interesting is the idea that all this suggests (at least to me) that perhaps we are not too far away from discovering how to connect to the data network of the Universe-as-quantum-computer somewhat like how we connect to the internet today.
Interesting indeed (unless I'm misunderstanding something)! :)
Edit: changed "the act of communicating a [particular] probability" to "expressing a [particular] probability" because defining a word with the same word is just circular thinking and not very helpful.
A
andi
Guest
Gliese 581 G:new planet discovered 2010
http://www.newsopi.com/tech/gliese-581-g-new-planet-discovered-2010/4536/
Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADFeSFkgwUI&feature=player_embedded
http://www.newsopi.com/tech/gliese-581-g-new-planet-discovered-2010/4536/
Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADFeSFkgwUI&feature=player_embedded
Bud said:
To really think in unlimited possibilities, why would you limit life being on only earth-like planets? Could there not be life on planets that would not support humans? That are not in the "Goldilock's zone"?
Why would other life have to be like us? Look at all the life around thermal vents in the oceans. Places where scientists thought nothing would ever be able to live. So, too, could there be other entities that can live in environments that would not sustain us. Or so I think.
Maybe the condition for the apparition of physical life is conciousness. In other words, what's the point for a planet to support life of it doesn't participate in the ascending and descending flow of conciousness? Maybe every planet who supports life in any possible form has a concious lifeform (which we can or cannot detect according to our preconcepttion of what organic life is) in search of a reconnection with its pre-fall state?
Gonzo
The Living Force
I think Nienna was saying that it is limiting to only look at Earth-like planets, or those that would support Earth-like life, and thus even the concept of a goldilocks zone is limiting in the quest for life.
The fact that you, in mentioning thinking without limits, limited your thinking by appearing to only consider Earth-like planets, thereby limiting yourself, was ironic.
At least that's what I got from it.
Hard to think outside of the box when the box is all we are trained to see. We often think we are thinking outside of the box only to learn we are seeing a box within a box within a box...
Gonzo
The fact that you, in mentioning thinking without limits, limited your thinking by appearing to only consider Earth-like planets, thereby limiting yourself, was ironic.
At least that's what I got from it.
Hard to think outside of the box when the box is all we are trained to see. We often think we are thinking outside of the box only to learn we are seeing a box within a box within a box...
Gonzo
Buddy
The Living Force
OK, but the article on the original post was about an "Earth-Like" planet that was found, right? So, my comment indicated that, consistent with the C's advice on thinking in unlimited possibilities, I saw no reason to assume there is a limit on "Earth-like" planets throughout the Universe.
So, what I am asking is...where am I limiting anything to "only" life on Earth-like planets?
If the article had been about a flower pot found in the Goldilocks zone, my comment would have been along the lines of "I see no reason to assume there is a limit on "flower pots" throughout the Universe. That would have implied nothing about "flowers". Do you see what I mean, or have I lost my mind?
Note: I mentioned "thinking without limits", yes, but what I was thinking "about" was related to the context of the subject of the article, if that makes any sense.
So, what I am asking is...where am I limiting anything to "only" life on Earth-like planets?
If the article had been about a flower pot found in the Goldilocks zone, my comment would have been along the lines of "I see no reason to assume there is a limit on "flower pots" throughout the Universe. That would have implied nothing about "flowers". Do you see what I mean, or have I lost my mind?
Note: I mentioned "thinking without limits", yes, but what I was thinking "about" was related to the context of the subject of the article, if that makes any sense.
Bud's remark is not illogical. In an infinite possibilities cosmos, earth-like planets are infinite, as well as non-earth-like planets with life. In fact, you can put everything to infinity inside infinity, and everything is infinitly possible (except if there is a natural law limiting that) :)
Gonzo
The Living Force
Bud, you're missing the point. Forget the article for a second and just look at your statement about thinking without limit. That's where the irony was. That's all.
I think you are having trouble because you are framing the comment within the confine of the article and Nienna was merely pointing out the, if one were to think without limits, one would not be limiting possibilities of life to Earth-like planets.
Gonzo
I think you are having trouble because you are framing the comment within the confine of the article and Nienna was merely pointing out the, if one were to think without limits, one would not be limiting possibilities of life to Earth-like planets.
Gonzo
abstract
Dagobah Resident
It really does make one wonder about all the possibilities that exist in our universe, in terms of what different planets are like and whether beings reside there, and if they do then what are they like?
Is there a planet somewhere with a bunch of green blob beings that can shapeshift? Who knows? Maybe there's a planet made of ice, like in star wars! :D
Okay so i'm sort of joking there but it really is mind blowing how much stuff is out there in the universe.
Is there a planet somewhere with a bunch of green blob beings that can shapeshift? Who knows? Maybe there's a planet made of ice, like in star wars! :D
Okay so i'm sort of joking there but it really is mind blowing how much stuff is out there in the universe.
Buddy
The Living Force
Gonzo said:
I understand what you are saying, Gonzo but since the irony is based on an invalid assumption the irony doesn't exist. One doesn't just "think without limits", one has to "think without limits" with respect to something as a focus of thought.
It seems to me if we want to reason efficiently, at least with respect to the natural world/Universe, then we need to be aware of the assumptions we make and how we construct our sentences. mkrnhr understood that I was merely drawing attention to one possibility because it related to the subject of the article. It doesn't follow that because I draw attention to one possibility, that I am denying or excluding all other possibilities but that is the assumption that I think is being read into my statement and that is what I was wanting to find out.
I have stated elsewhere that I believe Nature's point of view is that 'all relationships exist by default unless something specific is done to constrain one or more relationships'. If we replace that idea with the C's: "think in unlimited/infinite possibilities, then THAT becomes the background context and our logic must conform appropriately.
With THAT as background context (infinite possibilities of infinite stuff), it is more accurate to point out what is not being referred to or asserted, then what is, in order to focus attention to a subject, because every assertion is always done within a background context anyway, whether we are aware of it or not.
Look at the sentence as a whole and the article it is related to (context):
What it says is: [In this particular context that includes the subject matter of that particular article] Given a background context of unlimited possibilities, I tend to think that there is no reason to assume any limit on the number of Earth-like planets 'out there' somewhere."
Making a statement about 'what I see no reason to assume' says nothing about what I am assuming, any more than saying I have no peppermints in my pocket, gives you any idea about what is in my pockets.
Does that clarify my concern/statements?
John G
The Living Force
Bud said:
Since you are quite colinear in a forum with 7 densities worth of lifeforms, that certainly makes sense. What got added to your comment could be seen as a clarification for others who might drop in to read. Speaking of 7th density, a possible clarification for 7th density might be that the information theory there includes quantum mechanics itself being limiting. Also for clarification, "no limits" of course doesn't mean you have to throw out all your working hypotheses and start over; it just means don't be overly bound by what you think is known.
