 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> One problem is chemistry.
If you haven't, you really really ought to read Permutation City by Greg Egan.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] dev null> wrote in message
news:4d3dac89$1@news.povray.org...
>
> On the other hand, I'm still at a loss for how to include all this
> interesting stuff without the simulation slowing down to the point where
> it's slower than *actual* evolution...
I remember my high school chemistry teacher once taking the time to mention
"how improbable we are". When you consider everything from getting ANY type
of life started in the first place, right up until the point where sentient
life develops, it really makes you think. I've even heard it said that
without the moon, there is no chance that humans would have developed, since
it has often protected us from asteroid impact. Every time organisms
started evolving to a certain level, BANG!
Anyway, yes. There are so many things to consider that it really makes you
wonder if we actually are alone in the universe. Perhaps the odds of life
evolving to this point are 1x10^21 to 1. I'd like to think that's not the
case, but it does make me wonder. At that point, it becomes more of a
philosophical issue, rather than a scientific one. At this point, we have
"one in a row" to work with, which really doesn't help very much.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
UncleHoot wrote:
> I've even heard it said that
> without the moon, there is no chance that humans would have developed, since
> it has often protected us from asteroid impact.
Actually, I have heard it was the moon skimming off excess atmosphere.
Otherwise, the earth would be like Venus.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
UncleHoot <jer### [at] questsoftwarecom> wrote:
> I remember my high school chemistry teacher once taking the time to mention
> "how improbable we are". When you consider everything from getting ANY type
> of life started in the first place, right up until the point where sentient
> life develops, it really makes you think. I've even heard it said that
> without the moon, there is no chance that humans would have developed, since
> it has often protected us from asteroid impact. Every time organisms
> started evolving to a certain level, BANG!
It has also been hypothesized that without Jupiter there would probably
be no life on Earth because Jupiter has cleared the solar system from most
of the dangerous asteroids. OTOH, another study contradicts this and claims
it has no effect (and may, in fact, be the opposite, that Jupiter might
actually cause us *more* danger than less, but we have just been lucky
so far).
Even if the Moon has helped the formation of life in some way, it doesn't
mean that life would be impossible without it. Even if the danger of
total destruction is greater, life can still get lucky. If not on this
planet, on one of the trillions and trillions of other planets out there
(this is the anthropic principle).
> Anyway, yes. There are so many things to consider that it really makes you
> wonder if we actually are alone in the universe.
My take: If there is life in the Universe (which happens to be the case),
some of that life must have been the first one to form. Well, we might just
be that first, don't you think?
The anthropic principle can also be applied in this case: The first
intelligent life to form will inevitably wonder why they don't detect
any other intelligent life. The answer is pretty obvious: Because they
are the first, and there is no other intelligent life yet.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> My take: If there is life in the Universe (which happens to be the case),
> some of that life must have been the first one to form. Well, we might just
> be that first, don't you think?
I always enjoyed thinking about such things. What if we really *are* in the
middle of the universe, and it's not that space is expanding, but only that
everything really is rushing away from us because it all started right near
here? :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 25/01/2011 21:11, Warp nous fit lire :
> The anthropic principle can also be applied in this case: The first
> intelligent life to form will inevitably wonder why they don't detect
> any other intelligent life. The answer is pretty obvious: Because they
> are the first, and there is no other intelligent life yet.
>
There is no intelligent life yet.
http://xkcd.com/638/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25/01/2011 08:11 PM, Warp wrote:
> My take: If there is life in the Universe (which happens to be the case),
> some of that life must have been the first one to form. Well, we might just
> be that first, don't you think?
My understanding of general relativity is limited, but I was under the
impression that "first" is not a meaningful concept at relativistic
velocities.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I always enjoyed thinking about such things. What if we really *are* in the
> middle of the universe, and it's not that space is expanding, but only that
> everything really is rushing away from us because it all started right near
> here? :-)
What's the difference?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/25/2011 2:06 PM, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> I always enjoyed thinking about such things. What if we really *are* in the
>> middle of the universe, and it's not that space is expanding, but only that
>> everything really is rushing away from us because it all started right near
>> here? :-)
>
> What's the difference?
>
In terms of the universe in general, none. The "edges" are one big blur
of stuff moving away too fast to see anything but the blur from it, and
without reference to the edges, you can't define the "center". In
relation to everything else... umm.. just pick something to be the
center, and go with it?
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 25/01/2011 08:11 PM, Warp wrote:
> > My take: If there is life in the Universe (which happens to be the case),
> > some of that life must have been the first one to form. Well, we might just
> > be that first, don't you think?
> My understanding of general relativity is limited, but I was under the
> impression that "first" is not a meaningful concept at relativistic
> velocities.
That would be paradoxical.
Assume that intelligent life evolves in planet A, and it starts sending
radio signals to outer space. These radio signals eventually reach planet B.
Some time later life evolves in planet B to a point where they can receive
these signals from A. Clearly, intelligent life evolved in A first, and in
B after that.
If there was an external frame of reference where the intelligent life
forms in B before it forms in A, from this frame of reference it would look
like B is receiving radio signals from A before any intelligent life in A
has evolved (and started sending those signals). In other words, from this
frame of reference it would look like B is receiving radio signals from the
future. This would be paradoxical.
(Obviously if the external observer can see the radio signals arriving
at B, and hence see that B has evolved to the point of being able to receive
and interpret those signals, this external observer can trace the source of
those signals to A and see what is sending them.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
