Stephen Hawking Warns Against First Contact

[Tallpine]

Like viewing the inside of a hypercube through 3-space, you'd see yourself standing in what looks like an intersection of three infinite hallways staring at the back of your own head five cubes away. Except it's dodecahedrons.

So how do we know that one of the distant galaxies that we see out there is not our own milky way 

Maybe there is life out there, and it is us 

We can prove that we are not the center of the universe because the universe doesn't have a center.

Or maybe any(every) single point in the universe is the center. 

[PTK]

Or maybe any(every) single point in the universe is the center. 

From a viewpoint-centric standpoint, it is. We see the universe as a sphere of light, ever expanding, centered wherever we view it from.

[S. Williamson]

From a viewpoint-centric standpoint, it is. We see the universe as a sphere of light, ever expanding, centered wherever we view it from.

That's one theory anyway. 

[Perd Hapley]

From a viewpoint-centric standpoint, it is.

Which is the only way "center of the universe" has any meaning.  Which makes it equivalent to saying that we're the only intelligent life.

Unless someone here is flogging the geocentric view of the solar system, which would be something else entirely. 

[seeker_two]

I'd like to thank everyone here participating in this discussion....after reading the whole thing, I think my little brain is going supernova.... 


 

[mellestad]

Which is the only way "center of the universe" has any meaning.  Which makes it equivalent to saying that we're the only intelligent life.

Unless someone here is flogging the geocentric view of the solar system, which would be something else entirely. 

Just asking, but have you read the link from reg?

If you measured expansion rates from earth they would be the same as expansion rates measured from another star system.  So in a sense, the center of the universe might be the observer, wherever that observer is.  But it isn't the earth, since the earth is not an observer :)

[Perd Hapley]

Why would I waste time reading a link that tells me something I was taught long ago in a high school physics class?   


But anyway, I'm still waiting for the explanation on hubris.  Where and how does hubris enter the discussion?

[roo_ster]

If one is a materialist, I think SH's prediction perfectly reasonable.

Any civilization that develops will have had to obey the same laws of physics and had similar challenges and stimuli to deal with.  Human nature is inherently selfish and things like sharing, altruism, etc. have to be taught while "Mine! Mine" come naturally.  Any alien critters and civilizations with the gumption to develop interstellar travel will have to have similar irascibility tempered by socialization.  Naturally communistic critters wouldn't likely have the motivation to stand out from the crown and develop something new & disruptive.

If we look at the history of mankind, it is mostly one of despotism and violence.  Innovation comes the fastest when large groups are bent on killing each other, as survival focuses the minds & efforts like nothing else. 


AI
Don't see it happening any time soon.  Same with the Singularity, "Revelations for Technically-Minded Materialists."

Time as Magic Pixie Dust
One thing I have noticed with a lot of materialist explanations is the use of the concept of large amounts of time as a magic wand that can do anything, given enough time.  Truly wondrous things are achieved with time, making the whole water into wine thing seem mundane.

[Ron]

Time as Magic Pixie Dust
One thing I have noticed with a lot of materialist explanations is the use of the concept of large amounts of time as a magic wand that can do anything, given enough time.  Truly wondrous things are achieved with time, making the whole water into wine thing seem mundane.

Throw the right ingredients into the primordial pot and if you wait long enough, presto bammo! sentient life appears!

[AJ Dual]

Well, there's some evidence there's no such thing as "time".

Matter and energy (and space) are all just free to move in the "long now". What we think of as "time" might just our brains making sense of different states of entropy in physical systems.  

It's the most elegant solution to the time travel paradox issues as well. There is no "time travel" because there is nowhere to go. It's not inconsistent with time dilation in special relativity either. It's simply the difference in the rate of entropy from one frame of reference to another.

For instance, there is no such thing that measures "time". A clock simply counts the unwinding of a spring and turning of gears, the vibrations of a quartz crystal that's had a voltage applied to it, or the wiggling of cesium atoms... All these instruments do is record regular increases in entropy that are presumed to happen in time.

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time

[Ron]

No such thing as "time" in current physics, check

No such thing as "matter" in light of quantum mechanics, check

Now if we could just need to get rid of energy and space 

[AmbulanceDriver]

Well, there's some evidence there's no such thing as "time".

Matter and energy (and space) are all just free to move in the "long now". What we think of as "time" might just our brains making sense of different states of entropy in physical systems.  

It's the most elegant solution to the time travel paradox issues as well. There is no "time travel" because there is nowhere to go. It's not inconsistent with time dilation in special relativity either. It's simply the difference in the rate of entropy from one frame of reference to another.

For instance, there is no such thing that measures "time". A clock simply counts the unwinding of a spring and turning of gears, the vibrations of a quartz crystal that's had a voltage applied to it, or the wiggling of cesium atoms... All these instruments do is record regular increases in entropy that are presumed to happen in time.

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time

I'm gonna go lie down for a bit after reading that...

I mean, yeah, it makes a lot of sense, when you write it all out.  

But dang if it doesn't give one a headache.

[MechAg94]

Well, there's some evidence there's no such thing as "time".

Matter and energy (and space) are all just free to move in the "long now". What we think of as "time" might just our brains making sense of different states of entropy in physical systems.  

It's the most elegant solution to the time travel paradox issues as well. There is no "time travel" because there is nowhere to go. It's not inconsistent with time dilation in special relativity either. It's simply the difference in the rate of entropy from one frame of reference to another.

For instance, there is no such thing that measures "time". A clock simply counts the unwinding of a spring and turning of gears, the vibrations of a quartz crystal that's had a voltage applied to it, or the wiggling of cesium atoms... All these instruments do is record regular increases in entropy that are presumed to happen in time.

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time

And all that stuff is what we call time.  So yes, there is something called Time.  

That is an interesting thought on the idea of time travel.  No one ever mentions that it isn't there anymore; that reality only exists in the present.  The Langoliers would just eat you anyway.

[mellestad]

Why would I waste time reading a link that tells me something I was taught long ago in a high school physics class?   


But anyway, I'm still waiting for the explanation on hubris.  Where and how does hubris enter the discussion?

Why else would you call the earth the center of the universe, if not for that?  It isn't accurate, it doesn't explain anything and it causes confusion.

Maybe if you can give me an alternate reason that makes sense I can adjust my viewpoint.

[Tallpine]

Are we changing the universe simply by observing it  

 

[AJ Dual]

Are we changing the universe simply by observing it  

 

There are some quantum physicists who think so.

http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/11/human-observation-of-dark-energy-may-shorten-the-life-span-of-the-universe.ars

I don't know the state of the peer-review, if it's been debunked or not, but I can't find any glaring flaw in their reasoning, at least within my limited abilities.

However you quickly delve into epistemology and the mind-bending issues surrounding the various flavors of the anthropic principle as to what "observation" really means. Does observation that changes quantum states require consciousness/sentience, or can inanimate things like stars and galaxies "observe" each other by receiving their radiation/gravity etc.?

And how can you ever check? Because if you design experiments to discover if inanimate "observation" changes quantum states, you must always eventually add your conscious observations to the inanimate proxy-observer.

[mellestad]

I hate quantum mechanics.  Just thought I'd mention that.

[roo_ster]

Two statements:

1. "We are the only civilization in the universe."

2. "There are many (alien) civilizations in the universe."

Statement #1 has the advantage of empirical evidence showing (thus far, in 2010) that only one civilization exists in the universe.  "Running with the best evidence at hand," is an odd way to look at hubris.  Also, I can't recall a Greek deity punishing a mortal for such an attitude.

Statement #2 relies on much less sound evidence.  It seems much more a wish for materialist angels & devils.

[AJ Dual]

Two statements:

1. "We are the only civilization in the universe."

2. "There are many (alien) civilizations in the universe."

Statement #1 has the advantage of empirical evidence showing (thus far, in 2010) that only one civilization exists in the universe.  "Running with the best evidence at hand," is an odd way to look at hubris.  Also, I can't recall a Greek deity punishing a mortal for such an attitude.

Statement #2 relies on much less sound evidence.  It seems much more a wish for materialist angels & devils.

I can't directly argue that, however the empirical evidence for #1, considering the age ( in "imaginary" time?) and size of the Universe is the difference between .000000000000000000001 and .0.

You're stuck between disproving a negative which is never truly possible, and proving a positive which might be possible.

And anyway, I've made the case for what humanity should DO, whether #1 or #2 = TRUE is really the same.

Either we're insanely unique and precious, and we should grow and spread.

Or we're not alone, and we should grow and spread to be on our best footing possible should we meet them.

[mellestad]

Two statements:

1. "We are the only civilization in the universe."

2. "There are many (alien) civilizations in the universe."

Statement #1 has the advantage of empirical evidence showing (thus far, in 2010) that only one civilization exists in the universe.  "Running with the best evidence at hand," is an odd way to look at hubris.  Also, I can't recall a Greek deity punishing a mortal for such an attitude.

Statement #2 relies on much less sound evidence.  It seems much more a wish for materialist angels & devils.

Statement 2 is a strawman.  It is "There are probably many alien civilizations in the universe."

Both 1 and 2 are infering a result based on existing evidence.  However, at this point I think 2 is more likely based on what we know about life formation, star and planet formation and the size and age of the universe.


If you find one fish in a lake you don't say, "There is only one fish in this lake, because I have a fish in my hand, and I don't see any others next to me."  To me it seems more appropriate to infer that since the rest of the lake shares common features that unite to support the fish in hand, it is reasonable to posit more fish beyond the immediate area.

Why do you keep bringing up materialism, what does that have to do with anything?

[Tallpine]

1. "We are the only civilization in the universe."

2. "There are many (alien) civilizations in the universe."

If what we have is "civilization", I'm not sure the point in trying find any more of them 

[mellestad]

So how do we know that one of the distant galaxies that we see out there is not our own milky way 

Maybe there is life out there, and it is us 


Or maybe any(every) single point in the universe is the center. 

Hey, I missed this one.  Actually, they have run experiments to test whether or not space has a detectible curve to it.  All the results so far show it is 'flat'.  If the universe does curve back around, it is on such a slight curve would take longer to manifest than the area of the universe we are able to see, so no visible stars could be our own..

[Tallpine]

Hey, I missed this one.  Actually, they have run experiments to test whether or not space has a detectible curve to it.  All the results so far show it is 'flat'.  If the universe does curve back around, it is on such a slight curve would take longer to manifest than the area of the universe we are able to see, so no visible stars could be our own..

So you are one of those "flat universe" types? 


Well, it was a nice thought ....  maybe that galaxy out there is us at some point in the future, and that galaxy back there is us sometime in the past. 

[tyme]

Cute, brief center-of-the-universe explanation, courtesy of NASA: http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/en/kids/phonedrmarc/2003_june.shtml

But anyway, I'm still waiting for the explanation on hubris.  Where and how does hubris enter the discussion?

To quote Vernor Vinge (speaking through a very advanced fictional civilization),

Here we begin frank speculation. And since we are speculating, we'll use those powerful pseudo-laws, the Principles of Mediocrity and Minimal Assumption.

Why would we assume that the Earth is somehow special -- given the very limited data we have to go on about exoplanets, and even less data on Earth-like exoplanets -- unless, of course, we've already made up our minds that we WANT Earth to be special, because our philosophy/religion says so?

[mellestad]

Why would we assume that the Earth is somehow special -- given the very limited data we have to go on about exoplanets, and even less data on Earth-like exoplanets -- unless, of course, we've already made up our minds that we WANT Earth to be special, because our philosophy/religion says so?

Nicely put.

I had more sympathy for the viewpoint in the past, when we were not able to detect any exoplanets at all.  At least then you could argue that planet formation *might* be very rare in the absence of evidence to the contrary.  That, and how we thought H2O might be rare (now we know it isn't).

With modern data the assumptions you have to make for Earth to remain a special case are increasingly improbable.