Kevin's Watch

Thanks Sylvanus!

This will be a good distraction for Paul whenever he needs a break from his current Latin Intensive.

Can I just say something here, huh? Huh? I LOVE science! Thanks Syl!

It's a marvelous thing to be able to ponder these questions, and to be able to even answer some of them--if we can keep from destroying ourselves before then.

Of the Top 25 questions listed, these are the "top 10" that grip me the most:

What is the universe made of?
What is the biological basis of consciousness?
Can the laws of physics be unified?
How much can human life span be extended?
How does Earth's interior work?
Are we alone in the universe?
How and where did life on Earth arise?
What are the limits of conventional computing?
Do deeper principles underlie quantum uncertainty and nonlocality?
How hot will the greenhouse world be?

The greenhouse question is the only one I'm not sure I want to stick around to find out the answer to...

Science?
I quite fancy it...

Ignoring my last post, I'm particularly interested in the unification of physics and those dealing with physical anthropology. I may be hard to believe by archaeology is actually a science. How much is the real question especially within the profession.

It seems to me that the laws of physics must be unified, regardless of whether or not we are aware of how. But if there were not underlying principles that are always present and always consistent, wouldn't the universe be a chaotic mess? Who can imagine what would happen? Matter and energy changing form willy-nilly; living things becoming non-living for no reason; gravity working, then suddenly not...


As for consciousness... Oy, a few of us have gone around the block a few times with that, just trying to figure out what consciousness is. Forget about its biological basis!

Fist and Faith wrote:...if there were not underlying principles that are always present and always consistent, wouldn't the universe be a chaotic mess? Who can imagine what would happen? Matter and energy changing form willy-nilly; living things becoming non-living for no reason; gravity working, then suddenly not...

Uh, expand your timescale by a factor of several thousand/million, and guess what...

--A

Kins,

Science?
Is that like evolution and stuff?
Science is just one of Satan's tools...

As the mod of this forum, I can say that this post adds nothing to the discussion and exists only as a way for you to get a rise out of people. Please refrain from making such statements, at least in this forum.

That being said - I enjoy particularly these questions:

> Why Do Humans Have So Few Genes?

> What Controls Organ Regeneration?

> Can the Laws of Physics Be Unified?

Mhoram, grow up. It was a joke. We have different opinions about things. If you didn't have a little vendetta against me you wouldn't have reprimanded me in a post.

OT - great new avatar, Fist!

Kins,

I have no "vendetta" against you, and regardless of who had posted that I would have called them on it. And yeah, I'm aware that it was a joke; however it was in an inappropriate place IMO.

The most startling thing about those questions is what they reveal of scientists' lack of knowledge - even about basic principles like gravity.

Universe > 11.2 billion + years
Modern science < 500 years (being very generous)

I think the fact we even know we lack information about gravity is amazing. I mean, Newton was a genius in his time, but now you'd be considered a bit of a dolt if you just realized there's a principle behind things falling.

Frankly this is a discussion about questions not answers. If every brilliant scientist on the planet were to give his or her best candid and honest answers to these questions or postulate about possible avenues through which answers might be reached I venture to say that we might end up with some very intriguing possibilities that the articles from Science magazine are simply not privy to. I'm certain there is research being conducted as we speak to which the general public is oblivious. Possible unpredictable advances in computer processor technology; energy generation and human longevity may all be mere years away from being revealed to the masses. On the other hand my particular optimism toward scientific advancement may be falsely placed. Only time will tell. I only know that based on what I’ve witnessed during my short life I am suitably amazed at the wonders humans have wrought. It’s not all glorious. We tend to destroy as much as we create but I have fairly high hopes.

Sylvanus wrote:Universe > 11.2 billion + years
Modern science < 500 years (being very generous)

I think the fact we even know we lack information about gravity is amazing. I mean, Newton was a genius in his time, but now you'd be considered a bit of a dolt if you just realized there's a principle behind things falling.

That's exactly my point... thank you for putting it so well.

Avatar wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote:...if there were not underlying principles that are always present and always consistent, wouldn't the universe be a chaotic mess? Who can imagine what would happen? Matter and energy changing form willy-nilly; living things becoming non-living for no reason; gravity working, then suddenly not...

Uh, expand your timescale by a factor of several thousand/million, and guess what...

Yes, but predictably. Or at least we'll probably eventually be able to predict the things you have in mind. If not - meaning, if there were no underlying principles - what would reality be like? Indescribable. How can something that might be constantly changing, in every conceivable and inconceivable way, at any time, in any place (if "place" could even have meaning), be described?

Well, I sort of thought that it's only superficially predictable, what with vectors collapsing all over the place, and that "place" only has the temporary meaning that we assign to it.

There may be underlying principles that guide these things, but they're based on observed phenomena, and inferred from there. The difference between what is, and what we think is, is just another of those questions I guess.

--A

I hope this thread doesn't turn into another science vs. religion vs. philosophy debate. Don't we have the Close for that?

I thought the Loresraat was the "safe" place to talk purely matters of science and technology. Maybe I'm wrong.

I'm afraid it's unpredictable at best.

--A

I may not be expressing myself well enough, because what I'm talking about isn't particularly in the Close's domain.

Avatar wrote:There may be underlying principles that guide these things, but they're based on observed phenomena, and inferred from there.

I don't agree. The principles exist, regardless of our observations and inferences. I'm convinced they exist, because I don't see how reality could be anything other than absolute chaos if there weren't any. And I'm talking about at the most fundamental levels possible; deeper than anything we've yet observed. We observe that quarks and gluons and all that jazz behave in certain ways. But why should it be so? Why doesn't a quark do X one day, and Y the next? Because some deeper principle guides it. If, all factors being equal, it randomly did different things at different times, where would we be?

Avatar wrote:The difference between what is, and what we think is, is just another of those questions I guess.

True enough.