One of the most ironical movies ever
-
Remember the movie CONTACT with Jodie Foster, based on Carl Sagan's book? Well, we were watching it the other night and a thought occurred to me... Jodie's character Ellie bases her SETI research entirely on the premise that if she can detect some kind of meaningful "pattern" in a radio transmission, it would indicate the existence of an extraterrestrial intelligence (that created the message). And yet, as an atheist, her character consistently denies that all of the meaningful patterns that fill the known universe - including not only biological life but the laws of nature and logic themselves - do not indicate the existence of some other (creating) intelligence. Now that's irony at it's best - and here I thought Sagan didn't believe in God!
The Grand Negus wrote:
Now that's irony at it's best
No... that is misunderstanding the premise at best. Patterns are easy to find in nature, if anything what you are looking for in Seti is randomness a non-repeating pattern that does not match a known pattern. The first LGM pattern (named LGM unappropriately for "little green men" -- jumping the gun a bit), was a pulsar orbiting another body. This produced a series of pulses in perfect cycle, then the cycle broke, then repeated again. When observing a body for a short period of time, two overlapping elliptical orbits combined with a cyclical rotation (creating the pulses), looks more random than it is. After careful observation for an extended period of time, it was evaluated as an elliptical pattern with a rotation and an eclipse, all known "patterns." What she is looking for is an unknown pattern, any pattern is easy. Purely random and absolutely perfect, non-oscillating, sequences would be equally rare. The universe is a bell curve of patterns, with perfectly random being negligible and perfectly cyclical being at the other low side. In between a lot appear random or near cyclical but have subharmonic events measured over time. As mentioned before, our own sun has sub-harmonics that we measure, just as we measure from other suns in other solar system. The primary cycle is the well-known and well-measured 11 year sunspot cycle. But combined with that is a 22 year variation and a 66 year variation each of which has been measured. It is reasonable to assume, as nature doesn't produce either random or perfect cycles, that subharmonics will continue to be measured for quite some time. The limiting factor is volume of the sun. A single stable atom is cyclical, but that would be the smallest measured subharmonic variation since suns are composed of many elements and their gravitational effects add additional properties, add energy through fusion and you have a recipe of learning subharmonic variations for ages to come.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Hans Dietrich wrote:
Both are irrational belief systems - i.e., based on beliefs for which there are no demonstrable facts.
Actually, Ellie and her friends are still looking for a pattern in the radio spectrum. My friends and I have found so many patterns of such elegance and complexity that no man can even enumerate them. Think about it. If some SETI enthusiast detects a handful of prime numbers from an unexpected source tomorrow, the entire scientific community will be proclaiming "Life! Life! Intelligent life!". And yet, surrounded by patterns infinitely more complex and inexplicable - including that SETI enthusiast himself, and all of his thoughts - all they can say is "Dust! Dust! It's all just dust!". One doesn't know whether to laugh or cry.
The Grand Negus wrote:
My friends and I have found so many patterns of such elegance and complexity that no man can even enumerate them.
which shows your misunderstanding of the premise as theirs does. Lack of knowledge is not proof of God.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
One involves belief in fairy tales, in the irrational. The other involves belief in life on other planets, which is quite rational.
Both may be comforting to believe in, both are completely lacking in any indisputable evidence. Citing statistics is not proof. There is also the chance (however small) that there is no other intelligent life in the universe.
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
This belongs in the soapbox.
I was working from this description: The Lounge is a place where you can discuss anything that takes your fancy... If you're about to post something you wouldn't want your kid sister to read then don't post it. Do not post programming questions (use the programming forums for that) and please don't post ads. It took my fancy, it's kid sister safe, it's not a programming question, and it's not an ad. Besides, people get nasty (nastier) in the Soapbox!
The Grand Negus wrote:
where you can discuss
is the key... you are not coming here to DISCUSS anything, if anything you are coming to PROVE your opinion is the only one that counts. That is called standing on a soap-box due to the historical references of doing just that. If you truly want to discuss, rather than blather on that your concept is perfect, if you are willing to learn something you did not know from others here, then the lounge is the perfect place to be. If, however, you are simply searching to deny other opinions, prove you are right and everyone else is wrong, or seek disciples who already agree with you, those are all soap-box actions. And you well know it, you just don't like to have someone else doing the same in your threads.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
or maybe Sagan was a better writer than you think he was. maybe you're supposed to feel that tension. you don't think it's a coincidence that Ellie is reduced to asking for the authorities to accept her story on her word, her faith, without any evidence at all, do you? (a parallel to something i've seen recently - if i could just remember...) maybe Sagan was well aware of all the creationist arguments and thought it'd make an interesting story if he made his characters deal with them in interesting ways. maybe he decided against trying to give clear dogmatic answers for all of life's mysteries in a novel. nah, couldn't be.
image processing toolkits | batch image processing | blogging
Chris Losinger wrote:
you don't think it's a coincidence that Ellie is reduced to asking for the authorities to accept her story on her word, her faith, without any evidence at all, do you? (a parallel to something i've seen recently - if i could just remember...)
The book was less ambiguous than the movie. Multiple travelers, 12hrs of static on the video cameras (the amount of time they claimed the trip took), and a discussion with the aliens on faith that led to the discovery of a 'hidden message' in pi. In IIRC base11 after computing it out to many more places than'd ever been done before they found a grid that drew a circle in 1's and 0's.
-- Rules of thumb should not be taken for the whole hand.
-
Both may be comforting to believe in, both are completely lacking in any indisputable evidence. Citing statistics is not proof. There is also the chance (however small) that there is no other intelligent life in the universe.
Hans Dietrich wrote:
Citing statistics is not proof. There is also the chance (however small) that there is no other intelligent life in the universe.
Errr, I haven't cited statistics. And based on nothing but gut instinct, I wouldn't be surprised if the latter were true.
-
Remember the movie CONTACT with Jodie Foster, based on Carl Sagan's book? Well, we were watching it the other night and a thought occurred to me... Jodie's character Ellie bases her SETI research entirely on the premise that if she can detect some kind of meaningful "pattern" in a radio transmission, it would indicate the existence of an extraterrestrial intelligence (that created the message). And yet, as an atheist, her character consistently denies that all of the meaningful patterns that fill the known universe - including not only biological life but the laws of nature and logic themselves - do not indicate the existence of some other (creating) intelligence. Now that's irony at it's best - and here I thought Sagan didn't believe in God!
I dont see how a creator must be the ultimate conclusion based on patterns and the grande scale of things. :|
Cleako
-
I dont see how a creator must be the ultimate conclusion based on patterns and the grande scale of things. :|
Cleako
And if it is a creator, we are naive to insist that its benevolent.
This statement was never false.
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
But they won't get nasty here because this isn't the Soapbox!
Don't you believe it.
The Grand Negus wrote:
And they shouldn't get nasty anyway
People shouldn't murder each other either - but it happens.
The Grand Negus wrote:
there's nothing offensive in what I said
But it could (and that subject often does) incite people to make offensive remarks.
The Grand Negus wrote:
I didn't post the thing to get attacked or to generate nasty remarks; I wanted to see if anyone could see a flaw in the logic.
I can, but I won't discuss it here. It belongs in the soapbox.
The Grand Negus wrote:
I think I'll put those in with the "avoiding the issue" group.
I'm not avoiding the issue - I just want to see it put in the right place.
Upcoming events: * Glasgow: Geek Dinner (5th March) * Edinburgh: Web Security Conference Day for Windows Developers (12th April) My: Website | Blog | Photos
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
I just want to see it put in the right place.
The right place - in your opinion. There's nothing about the description of this forum that indicates it's the wrong place, and the rating on the original post is currently 2.5 with 16 votes - that indicates that roughly half of the voters have no problem with the placement and/or the issue.
-
I dont see how a creator must be the ultimate conclusion based on patterns and the grande scale of things. :|
Cleako
cleako wrote:
I dont see how a creator must be the ultimate conclusion based on patterns and the grande scale of things.
I'm saying that the "scientists" have a double standard: a bit of pattern in a radio transmission indicates intelligent design, but a massive amount of pattern all over the universe somehow does not.
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
the existence of some other (creating) intelligence
(My emphasis.) That's where your argument falls down. There's a difference between believing in aliens and believing in god.
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
I just want to see it put in the right place.
The right place - in your opinion. There's nothing about the description of this forum that indicates it's the wrong place, and the rating on the original post is currently 2.5 with 16 votes - that indicates that roughly half of the voters have no problem with the placement and/or the issue.
The Grand Negus wrote:
The right place - in your opinion.
An argument like this flares up every few months. And every few months someone (not just me) the poster gets told to put religion, politics and sex into the soapbox. It just seems to be my turn at the moment to say these things.
The Grand Negus wrote:
There's nothing about the description of this forum that indicates it's the wrong place
There's nothing in my house to indicate that people shouldn't smoke there, but they don't. If I have someone over who is a smoker they go outside if they need to. I don't have "No Smoking" signs up because it is culturally accepted that it is rude to smoke in someone else's house unless the owner does.
The Grand Negus wrote:
and the rating on the original post is currently 2.5 with 16 votes - that indicates that roughly half of the voters have no problem with the placement and/or the issue.
Not necessarily - people vote for all sorts of reasons, not necessarily for the reasons you'd like. In the last election I votes in the seat changed from Labour to LibDem. The new LibDem MP claimed all sorts of reasons for winning, but since it was a by-election it was most likely a protest vote rather than the start of a long term change. Since it was a "safe" labour seat and had been since before the Second World War, it will likely revert at the next general election.
Upcoming events: * Glasgow: Geek Dinner (5th March) * Edinburgh: Web Security Conference Day for Windows Developers (12th April) My: Website | Blog | Photos
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
The right place - in your opinion.
An argument like this flares up every few months. And every few months someone (not just me) the poster gets told to put religion, politics and sex into the soapbox. It just seems to be my turn at the moment to say these things.
The Grand Negus wrote:
There's nothing about the description of this forum that indicates it's the wrong place
There's nothing in my house to indicate that people shouldn't smoke there, but they don't. If I have someone over who is a smoker they go outside if they need to. I don't have "No Smoking" signs up because it is culturally accepted that it is rude to smoke in someone else's house unless the owner does.
The Grand Negus wrote:
and the rating on the original post is currently 2.5 with 16 votes - that indicates that roughly half of the voters have no problem with the placement and/or the issue.
Not necessarily - people vote for all sorts of reasons, not necessarily for the reasons you'd like. In the last election I votes in the seat changed from Labour to LibDem. The new LibDem MP claimed all sorts of reasons for winning, but since it was a by-election it was most likely a protest vote rather than the start of a long term change. Since it was a "safe" labour seat and had been since before the Second World War, it will likely revert at the next general election.
Upcoming events: * Glasgow: Geek Dinner (5th March) * Edinburgh: Web Security Conference Day for Windows Developers (12th April) My: Website | Blog | Photos
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Not necessarily - people vote for all sorts of reasons, not necessarily for the reasons you'd like.
True. But then consider this post[^] and the unusually high rating I've gotten on it, remembering that it's very hard for me to get a good rating on any post! I'm just saying that it is not at all clear that everyone agrees with your opinion on the matter, for whatever reason; so why should I listen to you instead of them? Besides, I have no way of moving the post and all of the associated replies, so it's a moot point. One would think that, owning the thread, I could simple cut and paste, but I can't.
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
Not necessarily - people vote for all sorts of reasons, not necessarily for the reasons you'd like.
True. But then consider this post[^] and the unusually high rating I've gotten on it, remembering that it's very hard for me to get a good rating on any post! I'm just saying that it is not at all clear that everyone agrees with your opinion on the matter, for whatever reason; so why should I listen to you instead of them? Besides, I have no way of moving the post and all of the associated replies, so it's a moot point. One would think that, owning the thread, I could simple cut and paste, but I can't.
The Grand Negus wrote:
it is not at all clear that everyone agrees with your opinion on the matter, for whatever reason; so why should I listen to you instead of them?
Why indeed? You are obviously not going to listen to my opinion anyway.
The Grand Negus wrote:
Besides, I have no way of moving the post and all of the associated replies
But, you can start a new thread in the Soapbox and discontinue the discussion here.
Upcoming events: * Glasgow: Geek Dinner (5th March) * Edinburgh: Web Security Conference Day for Windows Developers (12th April) My: Website | Blog | Photos
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
it is not at all clear that everyone agrees with your opinion on the matter, for whatever reason; so why should I listen to you instead of them?
Why indeed? You are obviously not going to listen to my opinion anyway.
The Grand Negus wrote:
Besides, I have no way of moving the post and all of the associated replies
But, you can start a new thread in the Soapbox and discontinue the discussion here.
Upcoming events: * Glasgow: Geek Dinner (5th March) * Edinburgh: Web Security Conference Day for Windows Developers (12th April) My: Website | Blog | Photos
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
You are obviously not going to listen to my opinion anyway.
I'm simply asking why your opinion regarding the "unwritten rules" of these forums should be regarded more than other such unofficial opinions.
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
But, you can start a new thread in the Soapbox and discontinue the discussion here.
Not a very elegant solution. If the people running the thing want users to moves stuff around, they need to provide the functionality to do so. I'm not into "work arounds".
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
You are obviously not going to listen to my opinion anyway.
I'm simply asking why your opinion regarding the "unwritten rules" of these forums should be regarded more than other such unofficial opinions.
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
But, you can start a new thread in the Soapbox and discontinue the discussion here.
Not a very elegant solution. If the people running the thing want users to moves stuff around, they need to provide the functionality to do so. I'm not into "work arounds".
The Grand Negus wrote:
I'm simply asking why your opinion regarding the "unwritten rules" of these forums should be regarded more than other such unofficial opinions.
I don't offer an opinion of the unwritten rules. I merely stated what they were, and suggested a corrective course of action.
The Grand Negus wrote:
Not a very elegant solution.
About 3 or more years ago there were posts from the "Clickety Police". They mostly died out when some new javascript was added to automatically turn pasted URLs in to clickable links.
The Grand Negus wrote:
If the people running the thing want users to moves stuff around, they need to provide the functionality to do so.
A few months ago Chris admitted that his list of new features to add exceeded 200 items. People suggest new stuff all the time on the suggestions forum. Some things take more time than others to implement (such as the migration to .NET) and he has got general site admin to do also. Things will get better, they just take time.
Upcoming events: * Glasgow: Geek Dinner (5th March) * Edinburgh: Web Security Conference Day for Windows Developers (12th April) My: Website | Blog | Photos
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
I'm simply asking why your opinion regarding the "unwritten rules" of these forums should be regarded more than other such unofficial opinions.
I don't offer an opinion of the unwritten rules. I merely stated what they were, and suggested a corrective course of action.
The Grand Negus wrote:
Not a very elegant solution.
About 3 or more years ago there were posts from the "Clickety Police". They mostly died out when some new javascript was added to automatically turn pasted URLs in to clickable links.
The Grand Negus wrote:
If the people running the thing want users to moves stuff around, they need to provide the functionality to do so.
A few months ago Chris admitted that his list of new features to add exceeded 200 items. People suggest new stuff all the time on the suggestions forum. Some things take more time than others to implement (such as the migration to .NET) and he has got general site admin to do also. Things will get better, they just take time.
Upcoming events: * Glasgow: Geek Dinner (5th March) * Edinburgh: Web Security Conference Day for Windows Developers (12th April) My: Website | Blog | Photos
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
I don't offer an opinion of the unwritten rules. I merely stated what they were...
Be reasonable, man. "I don't offer an opinion of the unwritten rules. I merely stated what they were..." in your opinion. Surely you don't claim to have the one and only official version of the unwritten rules in your head. The fact that they're unwritten and apparently not the same in everyone's mind suggests, first of all, that they're not rules but customs, and secondly that they are still in a state of flux; evolving, if you will.
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote:
I don't offer an opinion of the unwritten rules. I merely stated what they were...
Be reasonable, man. "I don't offer an opinion of the unwritten rules. I merely stated what they were..." in your opinion. Surely you don't claim to have the one and only official version of the unwritten rules in your head. The fact that they're unwritten and apparently not the same in everyone's mind suggests, first of all, that they're not rules but customs, and secondly that they are still in a state of flux; evolving, if you will.
The Grand Negus wrote:
Be reasonable, man. "I don't offer an opinion of the unwritten rules. I merely stated what they were..." in your opinion
I seem to have got a 5-vote for that. So, I'm not alone in thinking they are the rules.
The Grand Negus wrote:
Surely you don't claim to have the one and only official version of the unwritten rules in your head
No, I never claimed that.
The Grand Negus wrote:
The fact that they're unwritten and apparently not the same in everyone's mind suggests, first of all, that they're not rules but customs
The UK has an unwritten constitution - but everyone accepts what the constitution is.
The Grand Negus wrote:
and secondly that they are still in a state of flux; evolving, if you will
Well, they've been fairly stable all the time I've been here. There have been attempts by some to impose their ideas, but it doesn't last long. It reverts back to the stable form that works well for most people. And most people prefer their religion in the Soapbox.
Upcoming events: * Glasgow: Geek Dinner (5th March) * Edinburgh: Web Security Conference Day for Windows Developers (12th April) My: Website | Blog | Photos
-
"There's a difference between believing in aliens and believing in god." Quite so. There is no evidence for the former.
Ilíon wrote:
"There's a difference between believing in aliens and believing in god." Quite so. There is no evidence for the former.
That's a similarity, not a difference. ;-)
-
cleako wrote:
I dont see how a creator must be the ultimate conclusion based on patterns and the grande scale of things.
I'm saying that the "scientists" have a double standard: a bit of pattern in a radio transmission indicates intelligent design, but a massive amount of pattern all over the universe somehow does not.
The scientists long ago decided that they had a decent answer for the patterns throughout the universe and that was the Big Bang. The pattern in the radio transmission, however, indicates a different sound than that generated by celestial bodies. :-D
CleAkO