Stephen Hawking says don't talk to Aliens...

[hardrain]

so, everyone avoid Brad.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7107207.ece

[JavyVazquezIsSick]

Cool stuff, and I certainly agree.

This is a brilliant quote:

“I suspect there could be life and intelligence out there in forms we can’t conceive,” he said. “Just as a chimpanzee can’t understand quantum theory, it could be there are aspects of reality that are beyond the capacity of our brains.”

[Mark19]

How does he expect anyone in the southwest to get anything done then?

[hardrain]

Hawking's special about this is on Discovery tonight at 9

[MFLE]

[robot voice]Awesome.[/robot voice]

[TheYankee]

This is a brilliant quote: “Just as a chimpanzee can’t understand quantum theory, it could be there are aspects of reality that are beyond the capacity of our brains.”

Hmmmm... you don't say? Kind of like God is beyond our capacity to understand, Stephen? Oh, no. I forgot... you're an atheist. Consistency win.

[ojo]

hardly.

he's saying there are more than likely facts we cannot comprehend.

he's not asking you to take a steaming hot pile of blind faith to your throat.

[xenadanielle]

[robot voice]Awesome.[/robot voice]

Damn!

I also think his advice is good and not just about Brad.

[JL25and3]

hardly.

he's saying there are more than likely facts we cannot comprehend.

he's not asking you to take a steaming hot pile of blind faith to your throat.

Ah. There are facts that we cannot comprehend, but only the ones I want to assume without evidence, not the ones someone else wants to assume without evidence.

Frankly, his argument - "well, there are really a whole lot of galaxies, so there's probably life somewhere" - is no more rational or empirical than the "watchmaker" argument. Personally, I don't take Hawking's argument to mean much, either.

[SalingerNY]

Hmmmm... you don't say? Kind of like God is beyond our capacity to understand, Stephen? Oh, no. I forgot... you're an atheist. Consistency win.

In fairness, scientists who are Christians make similar arguments to explain their faith. I think this is what you're trying to say, and I agree with you.

But there's nothing inconsistent between what Hawking said there and the fact that Hawking isn't a religious person. Has he actually described himself as an "atheist"? My guess is that he's much closer to being an agnostic.

[montrealer]

Well........if you keep yodeling into outer space eventually someone`s going to hear you........until I know where on the food chain we stand I think we should STFU...........

[MFLE]

I, for one, hope that Carl Everett registers a profile here and chimes in on this very topic!

[TheYankee]

In fairness, scientists who are Christians make similar arguments to explain their faith. I think this is what you're trying to say, and I agree with you.

Yep, you caught my drift.

But there's nothing inconsistent between what Hawking said there and the fact that Hawking isn't a religious person. Has he actually described himself as an "atheist"? My guess is that he's much closer to being an agnostic.

I was under the impression he did consider himself an atheist. Perhaps I'm mistaken.

And for the record, I agree with Hawking. I believe there are aliens out there. I think it unlikely that this planet is the only one sustaining life.

[Sam18]

Hmmmm... you don't say? Kind of like God is beyond our capacity to understand, Stephen? Oh, no. I forgot... you're an atheist. Consistency win.

There is plenty of evidence for life being able to form on other planets, we just haven't observed it yet. Life already forms on earth under harsh climates and conditions. There is absolutely no evidence for god.

[TheYankee]

There is plenty of evidence for life being able to form on other planets, we just haven't observed it yet. Life already forms on earth under harsh climates and conditions. There is absolutely no evidence for god.

That's not the point of discussion here, Sam.

[RYMASTER or Ryan_Yankees]

There is plenty of evidence for life being able to form on other planets, we just haven't observed it yet. Life already forms on earth under harsh climates and conditions. There is absolutely no evidence for god.

Not to speak for Nic, but I think this isn't an issue for him - it's what he views as an inconsistency in Hawking's arguments.

[Bambino22]

Frankly, his argument - "well, there are really a whole lot of galaxies, so there's probably life somewhere" - is no more rational or empirical than the "watchmaker" argument.

Except it is though. His argument is based upon extrapolating natural occurrences and phenomena, and saying that in accordance to what we know, it is probable based on sample size that X is true.

The watchmaker argument doesn't extrapolate anything. In fact it does the opposite and asserts that the natural order is entirely nullified by the whims of a dues ex machina that has no basis in observation.

[NYYDragoon]

Frankly, his argument - "well, there are really a whole lot of galaxies, so there's probably life somewhere" - is no more rational or empirical than the "watchmaker" argument. Personally, I don't take Hawking's argument to mean much, either.

Ditto.

Furthermore, if there are other forms of life out there, we really have no idea about how complex they'd be simply because we don't understand how complex we are. Are we relatively highly evolved? Or are we still babies? You'd have to imagine that most life would be near some mean, whatever that is.

[SalingerNY]

I, for one, hope that Carl Everett registers a profile here and chimes in on this very topic!

[Sam18]

That's not the point of discussion here, Sam.

Then what is?

[Bambino22]

Not to speak for Nic, but I think this isn't an issue for him - it's what he views as an inconsistency in Hawking's arguments.

There is no inconsistency.

[TheYankee]

Not to speak for Nic, but I think this isn't an issue for him - it's what he views as an inconsistency in Hawking's arguments.

That's it.

If you're going to use the "we can't comprehend" argument here, I think it should make you consider going, "Can I fully comprehend why I'm here in the first place?"

It's just something to think about.

[NYYDragoon]

If you're going to use the "we can't comprehend" argument here, I think it should make you consider going, "Can I fully comprehend why I'm here in the first place?"

Sure. But the notion of "god" is something that's within our comprehension, no? What a catch-22...

[TheYankee]

Sure. But the notion of "god" is something that's within our comprehension, no? What a catch-22...

Only sort of. I see where you're going with this, but it doesn't encompass the whole thing.

Many of us believe there to be a God, but there's no standard of empirical proof He does exist by our ways of understanding. See what I'm getting at?

[NYYDragoon]

Only sort of. I see where you're going with this, but it doesn't encompass the whole thing.

Many of us believe there to be a God, but there's no standard of empirical proof He does exist by our ways of understanding. See what I'm getting at?

No, I do not.

[Sam18]

That's it.

If you're going to use the "we can't comprehend" argument here, I think it should make you consider going, "Can I fully comprehend why I'm here in the first place?"

It's just something to think about.

Like bambino said there is no inconsistency, saying we can't understand the nature of alien life is no different than saying we can't yet understand the nature of quantum mechanics. It's an argument based on evidence for things that exist or could exist, we believe they could exist because there is evidence for them. There is no evidence for god, thus saying we can't understand god is like saying we can't understand dragons and invisible turtles.

[JavyVazquezIsSick]

Well put Sam.

[Evil Empire]

Sure. But the notion of "god" is something that's within our comprehension, no? What a catch-22...

Exactly, especially when you consider that there is no evidence being used in either argument. However rationalization creates the aliens argument, where as the God notion is generally considered a human construct (any evidence for it stems from such, anyway). Any atheist would agree with you that a God snapped his fingers or tentacles or what have you to create the universe, but its no less likely that a leprachaun did it as well.

[NYYDragoon]

Like bambino said there is no inconsistency, saying we can't understand the nature of alien life is no different than saying we can't yet understand the nature of quantum mechanics. It's an argument based on evidence for things that exist or could exist, we believe they could exist because there is evidence for them. There is no evidence for god, thus saying we can't understand god is like saying we can't understand dragons and invisible turtles.

How do we know that the rules of this planet apply elsewhere? We're very confident in our science and whatnot and assume, through observation, that nature follows these set laws, but couldn't it be possible that there exists some planet that has new laws not found in this solar system?

[JL25and3]

How do we know that the rules of this planet apply elsewhere? We're very confident in our science and whatnot and assume, through observation, that nature follows these set laws, but couldn't it be possible that there exists some planet that has new laws not found in this solar system?

For that matter, how are we able to estimate the probability of life evolving, here or anywhere else?

[Bambino22]

but couldn't it be possible that there exists some planet that has new laws not found in this solar system?

It is possible that all the laws of physics will cease applying by the time you're done reading this message and the whole universe will go bang. There isn't any evidence for it though. That's the point. Hawking is extrapolating based on what evidence we have. I cannot logically prove that the evidence is infallible beyond any skeptical scrutiny, but it is the best evidence we have, which makes it significantly different than the watchmaker argument, for which there is zero evidence.

[NYYDragoon]

For that matter, how are we able to estimate the probability of life forming?

Exactly. And this always kills me about biologists. They say, "We can tell if a planet could support life because it has to have x, y, and z." I say, "Well isn't it possible that 'life' could exist elsewhere that does things a little differently?"

[Evil Empire]

Exactly. And this always kills me about biologists. They say, "We can tell if a planet could support life because it has to have x, y, and z." I say, "Well isn't it possible that 'life' could exist elsewhere that does things a little differently?"

It's absolutely possible, which is what Hawking is saying. I think biologists have to base it on what we've seen so far and what seems reasonable elsewhere. They can't make a claim without evidence, because then you're jumping from science to mysticism.

[NYYDragoon]

It is possible that all the laws of physics will cease applying by the time you're done reading this message and the whole universe will go bang. There isn't any evidence for it though. That's the point. Hawking is extrapolating based on what evidence what have. I cannot logically prove that the evidence is infallible beyond any skeptical scrutiny, but it is the best evidence we have, which makes it significantly different than the watchmaker argument, for which there is zero evidence.

Well via Occam's razor, there's no point in believing far fetched explanations, and yes, it makes sense to go with what we have. But when it comes to human understanding of the universe, I think we need to keep in the back of our minds that we're but specks in the grand scheme of things and shouldn't assume that we can grasp all of it.

These aren't the rules of this planet, they're rules of chemistry and physics.

The rules of chemistry and physics as we understand them.

[Sam18]

How do we know that the rules of this planet apply elsewhere? We're very confident in our science and whatnot and assume, through observation, that nature follows these set laws, but couldn't it be possible that there exists some planet that has new laws not found in this solar system?

These aren't the rules of this planet, they're rules of chemistry and physics. It is certainly possible life evolves in other ways on other planets in completely different ways than it evolves here but we're not arguing that.

[Sam18]

The rules of chemistry and physics as we understand them.

Right and how does that relate to the idea of god?

[Bambino22]

Exactly. And this always kills me about biologists. They say, "We can tell if a planet could support life because it has to have x, y, and z." I say, "Well isn't it possible that 'life' could exist elsewhere that does things a little differently?"

This is what kills me about engineers. They always say "We can tell if this will fly well based on x, y, and z." I say, "Well isn't it possible that 'flight' could work a little differently?

[JL25and3]

AJ responded to Sam's post before Sam posted it. So much for the laws of the physical universe.

[Bambino22]

Well via Occam's razor, there's no point in believing far fetched explanations, and yes, it makes sense to go with what we have. But when it comes to human understanding of the universe, I think we need to keep in the back of our minds that we're but specks in the grand scheme of things and shouldn't assume that we can grasp all of it.

What does this have to do with what he said?

[NYYDragoon]

This is what kills me about engineers. They always say "We can tell if this will fly well based on x, y, and z." I say, "Well isn't it possible that 'flight' could work a little differently?

Yes it could. Nice try though.

[Bambino22]

Yes it could.

That's the point. Everything we know could be false. That doesn't mean one argument based on extrapolation has the same validity as one based on no evidence.

You acknowledge this yourself in your engineering work.

[NYYDragoon]

Right and how does that relate to the idea of god?

This discussion is kinda spiraling every which way.

At any rate, I guess there's a subtlety here. When we're talking about the far reaches of the universe, we say, "Hey, we don't really know what's there, but a good starting point is that which is we know exists/works already." In contrast, you can argue that when it comes to the existence of deities, the thought process is more like, "We don't know, so let's just start at an arbitrary place."

Both approaches could send you in the wrong direction, but the benefit of the first is that you have something logical to fall on.

[SalingerNY]

Exactly. And this always kills me about biologists. They say, "We can tell if a planet could support life because it has to have x, y, and z." I say, "Well isn't it possible that 'life' could exist elsewhere that does things a little differently?"

Normally when biologists say this, though, they are speaking in terms of likelihoods and possibilities. They're not dealing with certainties.

Lots of things are possible. Far fewer are plausible.

[JL25and3]

Lots of things are possible. Far fewer are plausible.

Between the PS and the JDPNYY QoD/CoD threads, I'm finding that distinction becoming increasingly blurred.

[SalingerNY]

At any rate, I guess there's a subtlety here. When we're talking about the far reaches of the universe, we say, "Hey, we don't really know what's there, but a good starting point is that which is we know exists/works already." In contrast, you can argue that when it comes to the existence of deities, the thought process is more like, "We don't know, so let's just start at an arbitrary place."

Just because it's not based on scientific evidence doesn't mean it's based on something "arbitrary".

[NYYDragoon]

Just because it's not based on scientific evidence doesn't mean it's based on something "arbitrary".

I couldn't find a better word.

[Joba-Walkee]

Hawking's special about this is on Discovery tonight at 9

At the same time as "America: The Story of Us".

Life presents difficult choices.

[Bambino22]

At the same time as "America: The Story of Us".

Life presents difficult choices.

The history channel one has been ridiculous so far. I'm going to probably switch to discovery.

[Bambino22]

LOL! They aren't even hiding the corporatist slant this thing has.

[Joba-Walkee]

LOL! They aren't even hiding the corporatist slant this thing has.

Yeah, the Bank of America thing was ridiculous. Besides that, I've enjoyed it.