Information & knowledge

[cyberman]

In the context of different models fitting the same data, there is no right or wrong. Further information is required to kick one model out of the water and show it wrong.
Jeremy was saying, that based on what the experts in the field say, you were wrong about the specifics of certain models (regarding expansion exceeding light speed), so not in the same context of saying one model is wrong.

I wouldn't put it as harshly as saying you were wrong, only that you didn't understand, but I think (or hope) that has changed now.

Jeremy believes there is infinite matter. I believe that this is more than we know. He believes that he is right and I am wrong (and you too). He believes this because he believes that "top scientists" say he is right. Simple as that.

[jeremyp]

Current observations suggest the Universe is flat on the large scale.  If matter wasn't distributed evenly throughout it, it wouldn't be flat. 

The Universe could be flat and still finite, for example an infinitely long cylinder is flat and finite in one direction.  A torus is flat and finite in both directions.

The Universe could be like a torus but if it were, if you look in one direction you might expect to see stuff you can also see looking in another direction.  We can't, so if the Universe is finite, it is larger than what we can see.

[jeremyp]

Jeremy believes there is infinite matter.

Nope.  I'm saying there could be.  I think I've already stated that we don't know if the Universe is infinite or not.

[cyberman]

Current observations suggest the Universe is flat on the large scale.  If matter wasn't distributed evenly throughout it, it wouldn't be flat. 

The Universe could be flat and still finite, for example an infinitely long cylinder is flat and finite in one direction.  A torus is flat and finite in both directions.

The Universe could be like a torus but if it were, if you look in one direction you might expect to see stuff you can also see looking in another direction.  We can't, so if the Universe is finite, it is larger than what we can see.

Of course it's larger than what we can see. that's not in dispute. I am glad that you have changed your position on there being an infinite number of worlds. Given that the number of worlds could be finite, we are back where we began - it is impossible for us to know the odds of there being life on another world.

[cyberman]

Jeremy believes there is infinite matter.

Nope.  I'm saying there could be.  I think I've already stated that we don't know if the Universe is infinite or not.

So if we don't know that, what is the basis for your belief that we know enough to know the odds of there being life elsewhere in the universe?

[Andy]

Current observations suggest the Universe is flat on the large scale.  If matter wasn't distributed evenly throughout it, it wouldn't be flat. 

The Universe could be flat and still finite, for example an infinitely long cylinder is flat and finite in one direction.  A torus is flat and finite in both directions.

The Universe could be like a torus but if it were, if you look in one direction you might expect to see stuff you can also see looking in another direction.  We can't, so if the Universe is finite, it is larger than what we can see.

Of course it's larger than what we can see. that's not in dispute. I am glad that you have changed your position on there being an infinite number of worlds. Given that the number of worlds could be finite, we are back where we began - it is impossible for us to know the odds of there being life on another world.

Looking back through the thread, it never was his position. He said it was potentially infinite, which is correct.

[cyberman]

Current observations suggest the Universe is flat on the large scale.  If matter wasn't distributed evenly throughout it, it wouldn't be flat. 

The Universe could be flat and still finite, for example an infinitely long cylinder is flat and finite in one direction.  A torus is flat and finite in both directions.

The Universe could be like a torus but if it were, if you look in one direction you might expect to see stuff you can also see looking in another direction.  We can't, so if the Universe is finite, it is larger than what we can see.

Of course it's larger than what we can see. that's not in dispute. I am glad that you have changed your position on there being an infinite number of worlds. Given that the number of worlds could be finite, we are back where we began - it is impossible for us to know the odds of there being life on another world.

Looking back through the thread, it never was his position. He said it was potentially infinite, which is correct.

But the premise that there are infinite worlds is the basis of his belief that we can know the odds of there being life elsewhere, and,further, his belief that such life does in fact exist. If we do not know that there are infinite planets, from where does he derive this "knowledge"?

[jeremyp]

Of course it's larger than what we can see. that's not in dispute. I am glad that you have changed your position on there being an infinite number of worlds.

Are you totally incapable of reading comprehension?  I haven't changed my position, you are just pretending I have.

Given that the number of worlds could be finite,

Or infinite.

we are back where we began - it is impossible for us to know the odds of there being life on another world.

You don't need to know the precise probability.

Do you even remember how we got on to this subject, by the way?

[Andy]

Current observations suggest the Universe is flat on the large scale.  If matter wasn't distributed evenly throughout it, it wouldn't be flat. 

The Universe could be flat and still finite, for example an infinitely long cylinder is flat and finite in one direction.  A torus is flat and finite in both directions.

The Universe could be like a torus but if it were, if you look in one direction you might expect to see stuff you can also see looking in another direction.  We can't, so if the Universe is finite, it is larger than what we can see.

Of course it's larger than what we can see. that's not in dispute. I am glad that you have changed your position on there being an infinite number of worlds. Given that the number of worlds could be finite, we are back where we began - it is impossible for us to know the odds of there being life on another world.

Looking back through the thread, it never was his position. He said it was potentially infinite, which is correct.

But the premise that there are infinite worlds is the basis of his belief that we can know the odds of there being life elsewhere, and,further, his belief that such life does in fact exist. If we do not know that there are infinite planets, from where does he derive this "knowledge"?

Again, reading back through the thread, it's not easy to decipher whether jeremy was basing this knowledge solely on the hypothetical of infinite planets, rather than getting it from somewhere else. Only jeremy can clarify that.

I'm gonna wade out of this for now, as it's turning into a bit of a pissing competition and I don't wanna be ref.

[cyberman]

Of course it's larger than what we can see. that's not in dispute. I am glad that you have changed your position on there being an infinite number of worlds.

Are you totally incapable of reading comprehension?  I haven't changed my position, you are just pretending I have.

Given that the number of worlds could be finite,

Or infinite.

we are back where we began - it is impossible for us to know the odds of there being life on another world.

You don't need to know the precise probability.

Do you even remember how we got on to this subject, by the way?

Yup! we got onto it with you stating that you believe that there is life elsewhere, and me pointing out that we do not have sufficient data to know whether that is the case or not, and so this was an example of you believing in something for which there is no evidence. You claimed that the evidence is in the statistics, and that the odds of there being life elsewhere was "approaching 100%", and that this was known because of the fact that there are an infinite number of worlds.

My position throughout has been that we simply do not know what the odds are, so we have no idea at all whether it is likely that there is life elsewhere or not. I hope there is, that'd be great, but we simply don't know.

Your position throughout has been that we do know that it is likely. Given that we do not know that there are infinite worlds, how do we know that it is likely that there is life elsewhere?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Careful Len.

If, according to you, we cannot find morality in the universe, how are we going to find meaning?

You won't find meaning. It is up to each one of us to give his life some meaning if he needs, but as I have already said, most people don't bother with such thoughts, they just get on with life.

I think you mean it is up to us to Invent meaning....and if as you seem to suggest we invent our morals and meaning........how is that more virtuous than inventing something greater or more creative or more benevolent or more loving than ourselves?

Because giving your life meaning yourself makes much more sense than inventing something else to do the job.

I for one have discovered meaning. You have had to invent yours.

Well, in fairness, you haven't discovered anything ... you have just swallowed a story invented by an ancient people thousands of years ago. What exactly do you mean by "meaning"?

This post sounds like a good, sentimental script Len but ultimately meaningless........as you well know.

[Leonard James]

This post sounds like a good, sentimental script Len but ultimately meaningless........as you well know.

I have answered your post honestly and told you what I believe and how I feel about life. If you find that meaningless, I'm sorry I wasted the time.