Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Stephen Hawking Thread (merged)

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.

Re: Stephen Hawking says humans must go into space

Unread postby Battle_Scarred_Galactico » Mon 04 Dec 2006, 07:17:58

I think that the lower gravity might be a problem.


My son, you will not remember me. When you arive on Saturns' moons you will have amazing powers.
---
Battle_Scarred_Galactico
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 935
Joined: Thu 07 Apr 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Stephen Hawking says humans must go into space

Unread postby gego » Mon 04 Dec 2006, 07:45:19

This idea that we should abandon planet earth rather than learning to live in harmony with her seems to me to be insane, even if it were possible. Where are we to get the energy to fund this escape? Seems like we are just about to run out of energy for supporting life, much less supporting some crazy travel wish.

This guy seems to be seriously out of touch with everyday reality. I would say this is typical egocentric human thinking, like the universe was created for us to mess up and then just hopscotch on to the next habitable place. Maybe that is where the dinosaurs disappeared.

I find this guy offensive.
gego
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu 03 Mar 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Stephen Hawking says humans must go into space

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Mon 04 Dec 2006, 09:00:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BlisteredWhippet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'H')ow will you "randomly" engineer genetic mutations to avoid genetic defects?


Typical doomer viev:
1. Bleak
2. Groundless
3. Shortsighted


Well, we can eliminate shortsightedness with genetic engineering. :lol:

Its interesting that Hawking has a disease which is suspected of being genetic in nature, and he manages to pop out 3 children. Of course we're going to need another planet.

And why go to a star system? We can go to Mars, or the Saturn moons.

We can construct deflection shields for space debris similar to munitions-deflecting panels on armored vehicles, for sub-light, intrasolar travel and living.

Hawking would make a great spacemonkey, IMHO. He's already used to confinement.


I had noticed, you had quoted me out of context.
Here you have proper version:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Energy Unlimited', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')How will you "randomly" engineer genetic mutations to avoid genetic defects?



Germ line genetic engeneering before insertion into womb.
1. harmful mutations can be eradicated (damaged genes replaced).
2. useful genes added (from the pool taken from Earth).
3. crippling genes remooved.

NB. You will soon see "designer babys" on the Earth (if not in US, than in China).

You may also note, that few species had recovered their populations regardless of very small numbers at some point and now are considered safe.
About 70 000 years ago human population had dropped to few thousands and look what we have now.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')Very likely? Planets, meaning more than one? You cannot be serious.



Typical doomer viev:
1. Bleak
2. Groundless
3. Shortsighted

You may also note, that out of context quotations are hallmarks of strawman argument.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: No, really: Humans must colonize other planets: Hawking

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Mon 04 Dec 2006, 09:02:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ingenuity_Gap', '
')A tiny pin prick, you say? How old are you, EU? If you’re older than 12 years, you should consider seeing a doctor. They can help people grow up these days.

Had you already seen yours?
Did it help you?
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Stephen Hawking says humans must go into space

Unread postby AWPrime » Mon 04 Dec 2006, 10:50:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gego', 'T')his idea that we should abandon planet earth rather than learning to live in harmony with her seems to me to be insane, even if it were possible.

Why can't we do both?
AWPrime
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 514
Joined: Thu 07 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

Re: No, really: Humans must colonize other planets: Hawking

Unread postby Ingenuity_Gap » Mon 04 Dec 2006, 13:14:03

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ingenuity_Gap', '
')A tiny pin prick, you say? How old are you, EU? If you’re older than 12 years, you should consider seeing a doctor. They can help people grow up these days.

Had you already seen yours?
Did it help you?


I'll stop here. There's no point talking to smart airheads.
"The world is becoming too complex and too fast-paced to manage." - Thomas Homer-Dixon
User avatar
Ingenuity_Gap
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Fri 25 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Right place, wrong time
Top

Re: Stephen Hawking says humans must go into space

Unread postby gego » Mon 04 Dec 2006, 13:33:27

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AWPrime', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gego', 'T')his idea that we should abandon planet earth rather than learning to live in harmony with her seems to me to be insane, even if it were possible.

Why can't we do both?


My perception is that we can do neither. Science is a luxury flowing from excess energy. Baring some miracle, energy is about to become scarce, hence science also will wain. Whichever researchers don't die of starvation, will likely be back in fields behind horse drawn plows.
gego
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu 03 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Stephen Hawking says humans must go into space

Unread postby AWPrime » Mon 04 Dec 2006, 13:36:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gego', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AWPrime', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gego', 'T')his idea that we should abandon planet earth rather than learning to live in harmony with her seems to me to be insane, even if it were possible.

Why can't we do both?


My perception is that we can do neither. Science is a luxury flowing from excess energy. Baring some miracle, energy is about to become scarce, hence science also will wain. Whichever researchers don't die of starvation, will likely be back in fields behind horse drawn plows.

Doomer porn?
AWPrime
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 514
Joined: Thu 07 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

Re: No, really: Humans must colonize other planets: Hawking

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Mon 04 Dec 2006, 16:05:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ingenuity_Gap', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ingenuity_Gap', '
')A tiny pin prick, you say? How old are you, EU? If you’re older than 12 years, you should consider seeing a doctor. They can help people grow up these days.

Had you already seen yours?
Did it help you?


I'll stop here. There's no point talking to smart airheads.

We can either discuss base on merits and evidence, exchange insults (examples are in your quote) or not discuss at all.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Hawking, The MultiVerse & Peak Oil

Unread postby Aaron » Sat 03 Mar 2007, 09:19:13

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hat, they insist, is the only possible conclusion if we are to take quantum physics seriously. "Quantum mechanics forbids a single history," says Hertog.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his might sound odd, but it is precisely the view adopted by quantum theory. Think of a particle of light reaching our eye from a lamp. Common sense suggests that it simply travels in a straight line from the bulb to the eye. But to make correct predictions about the particle's behaviour, quantum mechanics must consider all other possible paths too, including ones in which, say, the photon bounces around the walls thousands of times before reaching us.

This summation of all paths, proposed in the 1960s by physicist Richard Feynman and others, is the only way to explain some of the bizarre properties of quantum particles, such as their apparent ability to be in two places at once. The key point is that not all paths contribute equally to the photon's behaviour: the straight-line trajectory dominates over the indirect ones.

Hertog argues that the same must be true of the path through time that took the Universe into its current state. We must regard it as a sum over all possible histories.


http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060619/ ... 619-6.html

?
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.

Hazel Henderson
User avatar
Aaron
Resting in Peace
 
Posts: 5998
Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Houston
Top

Re: Hawking, The MultiVerse & Peak Oil

Unread postby dinopello » Sat 03 Mar 2007, 10:22:04

You can view a lecture by Feynman on QED that he gave to either layman or undergrads in NZ.

Feynman - QED.

It's a lttle dated, but very interesting, and its Feynman!
User avatar
dinopello
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6088
Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: The Urban Village

Re: Hawking, The MultiVerse & Peak Oil

Unread postby Aaron » Sat 03 Mar 2007, 10:56:00

So if our Universe is only a single manifestation of an infinite Multiverse, then don't ideas like Peak Oil, or even death itself become irrelevant?

How can I die if I'm living in an infinity of Multiverses?

Is Jet Li in "The One" correct, & each time I perish in one Universe, all that I was merges with my remaining copies? Until some Omega Point where we all converge into a single individual?

Am I gonna wake up at some point... glance over at my buddy in the next booth, who asks me, "Play again?"

Isn't this what Buddhists believe essentially? That life & the material Universe are solid state... nothing gained nothing lost... forever.

Just a convergence to Omega...

If that's the case, then aren't we just fulfilling our part in the Multiverse?

And where is free will in this equation?

Is it really that our choices have already been made & we are simply seeking to understand them?

Are our ideas of time & causality a metaverse we created as an abstract of reality? (Having no actual existence per se) If we remove the boundary condition of time, then effect can precede cause. We would break the relationship between what happens & why.

String Theory seems to support some of these assertions.

Could modern physics be approaching religion's claim to explain the true nature of reality?
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.

Hazel Henderson
User avatar
Aaron
Resting in Peace
 
Posts: 5998
Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Houston

Re: Hawking, The MultiVerse & Peak Oil

Unread postby dinopello » Sat 03 Mar 2007, 11:09:12

Could be. As Feynman says: you won;t understand what he is explaining because neither does he, nor anyone else. There is no physical model, as much as people would like there to be. And we can only observe what we can observe.
User avatar
dinopello
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6088
Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: The Urban Village

Re: Hawking, The MultiVerse & Peak Oil

Unread postby Bas » Sat 03 Mar 2007, 11:37:44

hmmm...so you can prove that a particle can do two different things at the same time that are really mutually exclusive? or are we just not equipped to really understand? Being of a determinist persuasion, I'd say the latter. Anyway, as one great physicist said once (forgot his name); if you say you understand quantum physics, you don't understand quantum physics.
Bas
 

Re: Hawking, The MultiVerse & Peak Oil

Unread postby Bas » Sat 03 Mar 2007, 11:47:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', 'A')nd where is free will in this equation?


a favorite subject of mine, being a determinist. I don't believe in free will and choice and all that. Well, I believe in human and political rights and all that, but that's a whole different subject. Really a choice is an outcome of biology, personal conditioning and circumstance. It still seems like a choice to the individual (even to a die hard determinist like myself) as it is your personal history, circumstances of the moment that force you to pick one thing over another. On the same account I'm still not sure if time really exists, or the universe itself for that matter. [smilie=5propeller.gif]

PS $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o if our Universe is only a single manifestation of an infinite Multiverse, then don't ideas like Peak Oil, or even death itself become irrelevant?


I think peakoil would manifest itself in every multiverse (or at least in the ones in which we started using the stuff). As a matter of fact I think there must be intelligent ET's who found that oil was very convenient resource themselves and ran into their own PO.
Bas
 
Top

Re: Hawking, The MultiVerse & Peak Oil

Unread postby dinopello » Sat 03 Mar 2007, 11:59:39

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bas', 'A')nyway, as one great physicist said once (forgot his name); if you say you understand quantum physics, you don't understand quantum physics.


Probably many have said this, including Feynman in the lecture I posted.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')'d hate to die twice. It's so boring.

-Last words of Richard Feynman


More Feynman

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'G')od was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why you only live to a certain length of time — life and death — stuff like that. God is always associated with those things that you do not understand. Therefore I don't think that the laws can be considered to be like God because they have been figured out.
User avatar
dinopello
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6088
Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: The Urban Village
Top

Re: Hawking, The MultiVerse & Peak Oil

Unread postby MD » Sat 03 Mar 2007, 12:49:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dinopello', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'G')od was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why you only live to a certain length of time — life and death — stuff like that. God is always associated with those things that you do not understand. Therefore I don't think that the laws can be considered to be like God because they have been figured out.


The argument falls apart right from the beginning when you limit god to an invention that only explains what you don't understand.

It's nothing more than weak straw-man stuffing.
Stop filling dumpsters, as much as you possibly can, and everything will get better.

Just think it through.
It's not hard to do.
User avatar
MD
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4953
Joined: Mon 02 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: On the ball
Top

Re: Hawking, The MultiVerse & Peak Oil

Unread postby dinopello » Sat 03 Mar 2007, 13:01:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MD', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dinopello', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'G')od was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why you only live to a certain length of time — life and death — stuff like that. God is always associated with those things that you do not understand. Therefore I don't think that the laws can be considered to be like God because they have been figured out.



The argument falls apart right from the beginning when you limit god to an invention that only explains what you don't understand.

It's nothing more than weak straw-man stuffing.


That depends on what you believe 'understanding' something means. What do you think you understand?
Last edited by dinopello on Sat 03 Mar 2007, 13:04:50, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
dinopello
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6088
Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: The Urban Village
Top

Re: Hawking, The MultiVerse & Peak Oil

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Sat 03 Mar 2007, 13:04:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', 'S')o if our Universe is only a single manifestation of an infinite Multiverse, then don't ideas like Peak Oil, or even death itself become irrelevant?

How can I die if I'm living in an infinity of Multiverses?

My understanding of this issue suggest, that you will actually die, once there is no single history or "world" building our Multiverse left, where you are alive.
That means, that in the future there will be infinity of distinct quantum worlds, but non of them will include you being alive.

With PO there will be similar situation.
Once all quantum worlds and their histories are consistent with PO on the Earth, than the issue is undeniable.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Hawking, The MultiVerse & Peak Oil

Unread postby Zardoz » Sat 03 Mar 2007, 13:18:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Shannymara', 'S')ome of the Hindu texts mirror current cosmological theory quite strikingly.

They sure do. Fascinating, isn't it? We tend to look askance at Hinduism, with its exotic imagery (like your avatar, Shanny) and seemingly infinite number of gods and goddesses:

Hindu Gods and Goddesses

However, of all the many thousands of religions that we glorified babboons have developed, only Hinduism describes the universe in realistic cosmological terms:

Hindu Wisdom

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he cycle of creation and destruction continues forever, manifested in the Hindu deity Shiva, Lord of the Dance, who holds the drum that sounds the universe’s creation in his right hand and the flame that, billions of years later, will destroy the universe in his left. Meanwhile Brahma is but one of untold numbers of other gods dreaming their own universes.

The 8.64 billion years that mark a full day-and-night cycle in Brahma’s life is about half the modern estimate for the age of the universe. The ancient Hindus believed that each Brahma day and each Brahma night lasted a kalpa, 4.32 billion years...

Makes you think about becoming a devotee of Shiva, doesn't it? Compare that to the crude, primitive, infantile belief of some Evangelicals that this planet is just 6000 years old.
"Thank you for attending the oil age. We're going to scrape what we can out of these tar pits in Alberta and then shut down the machines and turn out the lights. Goodnight." - seldom_seen
User avatar
Zardoz
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6323
Joined: Fri 02 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Oil-addicted Southern Californucopia
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron