Invisible universe

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

Here is a simple video on how invisible the universe is.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170315-why-almost-all-of-the-universe-is-utterly-invisible

Cheers.

Sriram

[Nearly Sane]

Hi everyone,

Here is a simple video on how invisible the universe is.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170315-why-almost-all-of-the-universe-is-utterly-invisible

Cheers.

Sriram

just can't see it!

[Udayana]

It's the black blob with shifty eyes and funny legs.

The dark energy batteries certainly look good too - could come in handy.

[torridon]

Hi everyone,

Here is a simple video on how invisible the universe is.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170315-why-almost-all-of-the-universe-is-utterly-invisible

Cheers.

Sriram

Nicely refutes your argument about stubborn blind people  We are all blind to most of the universe, but that doesn't stop us from accepting that there must be something there.

Why have those people got bug eyes anyway; does that come from looking through telescopes too much ?

[Sriram]

Nicely refutes your argument about stubborn blind people  We are all blind to most of the universe, but that doesn't stop us from accepting that there must be something there.

Why have those people got bug eyes anyway; does that come from looking through telescopes too much ?

Not if one is really stubborn.  Anyone can ask a million questions about Dark Matter and Dark energy which no one will be able to answer.  It is easy for people to argue against such exotic stuff. But anyone who is reasonable would see the point of such assumptions.

It is similar with things like emergent properties needing Intelligence, NDE's indicating an after-life etc. People can be reasonable or they can be stubborn like the blind man. 

[torridon]

Not if one is really stubborn.  Anyone can ask a million questions about Dark Matter and Dark energy which no one will be able to answer.  It is easy for people to argue against such exotic stuff. But anyone who is reasonable would see the point of such assumptions.

It is similar with things like emergent properties needing Intelligence, NDE's indicating an after-life etc. People can be reasonable or they can be stubborn like the blind man.

There is hard evidence, albeit indirect, for something that we provisionally label 'dark matter'.  There is no such equivalent for 'after-life'.  That is just fanciful interpretation of personal anecdotes.  Such personal testimony hardly counts as hard evidence; to do so would be regressive, we might as well go back to medieval blood letting to cure diseases. We have learned the hard way what counts as good, telling evidence, we should not be in the business of abandoning good standards.

[Walter]

Not if one is really stubborn.  Anyone can ask a million questions about Dark Matter and Dark energy which no one will be able to answer.  It is easy for people to argue against such exotic stuff. But anyone who is reasonable would see the point of such assumptions.

It is similar with things like emergent properties needing Intelligence, NDE's indicating an after-life etc. People can be reasonable or they can be stubborn like the blind man.

just pack it in eh!

[Stranger]

It is similar with things like emergent properties needing Intelligence, NDE's indicating an after-life etc.

No, it isn't. Actual objective evidence is not similar to baseless speculation or wishful thinking based on anecdotes.

[Sriram]

There is hard evidence, albeit indirect, for something that we provisionally label 'dark matter'.  There is no such equivalent for 'after-life'.  That is just fanciful interpretation of personal anecdotes.  Such personal testimony hardly counts as hard evidence; to do so would be regressive, we might as well go back to medieval blood letting to cure diseases. We have learned the hard way what counts as good, telling evidence, we should not be in the business of abandoning good standards.

To a stubborn blind man...experience of light is anecdotal! 

[Walter]

To a stubborn blind man...experience of light is anecdotal!

not if its ultra violet or infra red

[torridon]

To a stubborn blind man...experience of light is anecdotal!

No it's not. Light can be measured using a light meter.  Nothing anecdotal about light meters.

[Sriram]

No it's not. Light can be measured using a light meter.  Nothing anecdotal about light meters.

You  think a reading on some meter would convince a stubborn blind man that Light exists all around him?! LOL! 

How would he know what the meter is measuring? And whether it really is measuring this mysterious thingy called Light? And whether someone hasn't rigged the meter in line with their belief in this Light?  How would he still know what Light is?

He would still have to take the word of the non blind.

[SusanDoris]

You  think a reading on some meter would convince a stubborn blind man that Light exists all around him?! LOL! 

How would he know what the meter is measuring? And whether it really is measuring this mysterious thingy called Light? And whether someone hasn't rigged the meter in line with their belief in this Light?  How would he still know what Light is?

He would still have to take the word of the non blind.

blind people are not so stupidly stubborn. All the people I know with sight loss have to find ways to be more resourceful and practical for a start.

[torridon]

You  think a reading on some meter would convince a stubborn blind man that Light exists all around him?! LOL! 

How would he know what the meter is measuring? And whether it really is measuring this mysterious thingy called Light? And whether someone hasn't rigged the meter in line with their belief in this Light?  How would he still know what Light is?

He would still have to take the word of the non blind.

I think you mistake stubborness for stupidity. 

I can't hear infrasound but I am not so stupid as to deny it because it can be measured with instrumentation.

I can't see infrared but I am not so stupid as to deny it because it can be measured with instrumentation.

Maybe you need to distinguish between stubbornness and stupidity and you need to learn the difference between anecdotal evidence and hard evidence.

[Sriram]

I think you mistake stubborness for stupidity. 

I can't hear infrasound but I am not so stupid as to deny it because it can be measured with instrumentation.

I can't see infrared but I am not so stupid as to deny it because it can be measured with instrumentation.

Maybe you need to distinguish between stubbornness and stupidity and you need to learn the difference between anecdotal evidence and hard evidence.

Remember the two boxes I talked about?!

When something is within your belief system you will accept anything, however far fetched....Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Worm holes,  Singularity, String vibrating in 11 dimensions, Seven dimensions wrapped around a String, Parallel Universes, Simulated Universes......whatever.   

But when something falls outside your belief system, you will not accept anything at all....however obvious and simple that may be. Emergent Properties and Complexity are obvious indications of a direction and Intelligence.  NDE's monitored by professional medical experts and psychologists, are obvious indications of an after-life.

You will dump things in the two boxes in your brain and accept everything in one and accept nothing in the other.  That is stubborn or stupid...you decide.

[torridon]

Remember the two boxes I talked about?!

When something is within your belief system you will accept anything, however far fetched....Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Worm holes,  Singularity, String vibrating in 11 dimensions, Seven dimensions wrapped around a String, Parallel Universes, Simulated Universes......whatever.   

But when something falls outside your belief system, you will not accept anything at all....however obvious and simple that may be. Emergent Properties and Complexity are obvious indications of a direction and Intelligence.  NDE's monitored by professional medical experts and psychologists, are obvious indications of an after-life.

You will dump things in the two boxes in your brain and accept everything in one and accept nothing in the other.  That is stubborn or stupid...you decide.

Science doesn't do beliefs.

Science is based on evidence, observation and reason. If there is solid repeatable evidence, then we will want to investigate and learn what we can. You are still mistaking rigour and discipline for stubbornness.  In a post-truth world seemingly awash with misinformation, conspiracy theories and fake news we need discipline more than ever to help us focus on what is actually true amongst all the noise. To abandon that discipline would be a backwards step.

[Enki]

Sounds like you're describing yourself when you talk about these two boxes, Sriram.

[jeremyp]

Remember the two boxes I talked about?!

When something is within your belief system you will accept anything, however far fetched....Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Worm holes,  Singularity, String vibrating in 11 dimensions, Seven dimensions wrapped around a String, Parallel Universes, Simulated Universes......whatever.   

But when something falls outside your belief system, you will not accept anything at all....however obvious and simple that may be. Emergent Properties and Complexity are obvious indications of a direction and Intelligence.  NDE's monitored by professional medical experts and psychologists, are obvious indications of an after-life.

You will dump things in the two boxes in your brain and accept everything in one and accept nothing in the other.  That is stubborn or stupid...you decide.

Here's your first mistake: science isn't a belief system.

Dark matter and dark energy are assumed to exist because the Universe behaves in ways that strongly suggest they do. Black holes have been observed. Worm holes are a theoretical consequence of General Relativity. They may or may not exist but nobody claims they definitely do. The eleven dimensions of string theory and parallel universes are only speculation and seen as such. Singularities are an embarrassment to GR and therefore it is thought that GR is incomplete or subtly wrong.

So, no, scientists don't accept anything however far fetched.

[Walter]

Sounds like you're describing yourself when you talk about these two boxes, Sriram.

you're flogging a dead horse here , he does not have the capacity to understand. 

[SusanDoris]

you're flogging a dead horse here , he does not have the capacity to understand. 

I read Sriram's post and before immediately responding with 'rubbish', I read the next post, went to reply and got the 'This page can't be displayed' notice. that lasted right until now actually.
Mind you, that doesn't alter the fact that I still think it was rubbish,!

[Sriram]

Science doesn't do beliefs.

Science is based on evidence, observation and reason. If there is solid repeatable evidence, then we will want to investigate and learn what we can. You are still mistaking rigour and discipline for stubbornness.  In a post-truth world seemingly awash with misinformation, conspiracy theories and fake news we need discipline more than ever to help us focus on what is actually true amongst all the noise. To abandon that discipline would be a backwards step.

Thinking that only material things can exist, everything requires 'hard evidence' in the form of measurable parameters, science is the only way to understand reality, anecdotal experiences cannot be evidence for real phenomena, changes in properties of organisms can occur through random variations only.....all these are beliefs.

[Walter]

Thinking that only material things can exist, everything requires 'hard evidence' in the form of measurable parameters, science is the only way to understand reality, anecdotal experiences cannot be evidence for real phenomena, changes in properties of organisms can occur through random variations only.....all these are beliefs.

I'm glad I'm not you !

[torridon]

Thinking that only material things can exist, everything requires 'hard evidence' in the form of measurable parameters, science is the only way to understand reality, anecdotal experiences cannot be evidence for real phenomena, changes in properties of organisms can occur through random variations only.....all these are beliefs.

The ToE is not a belief, it is a theory drawn from observation and evidence and as such is subject to constant update, unlike beliefs.

Who says only material things exist ?  Energy is not matter, quantum states are not matter, spacetime is not matter. 

Anecdotal evidence is poor quality, typically, so we value forms of evidence that are more robust. Nothing wrong about that. If we open the door to anecdotal testimony, all manner of mumbo jumbo will get sucked in.  It is a good thing that we make effort to keep our knowledge base clean.

[Stranger]

Thinking that only material things can exist...

Who thinks that?

...everything requires 'hard evidence' in the form of measurable parameters...

Not sure what "measurable parameters" means in the context. However, if we don't have consistent, objective evidence for something, how else do we distinguish a real phenomenon from guessing or mistake or misinterpretation or wishful thinking or...?

...science is the only way to understand reality...

Well, it appears to be the best why to understand matters of objective (intersubjective) fact. If you have something as good or better at that, then feel free to share.

...anecdotal experiences cannot be evidence for real phenomena...

Well, of course they can be. However, anecdotal evidence alone is not a basis for believing something - if it were, we'd have to believe many mutually contradictory things - which would be very confusing.

...changes in properties of organisms can occur through random variations only...

You'd do yourself a big favour if you actually bothered to study and understand the subjects you address. You seem to have a completely fixed - and largely inaccurate - view of both science in general and of specific scientific theories, hypotheses and speculations. Hence, you seem completely unable to grasp (for example) the actual theory of evolution by natural selection because it is nothing like the idea that is fixed in your mind. You cannot see that dark matter is in a totally different category to singularities which are in a different category to parallel universes, no matter how many times the distinctions are pointed out.

[SusanDoris]

Ah, another of your good posts, Skos.

I also agree with Walter's, 'I'm glad I'm not you.'