Space.

[Forward Union]

as we all know "Space is big, really big" so big its inconceivable. We cannot knowingly grasp its size. Perhaps that's debatable :unsure: ur...anyway!

I was inspired by a snapshot, of the known universe. To ask myself the following questions. Read them, and if you will, answer them. Going into as much depth as you wish.

1) Do you think humans will ever colonise planets other than earth?

2) Do you think humanity will ever colonise the entire galaxy?

and the real question....

3) Do you think, with an infinite amount of time to waste, that humanity will, one day, colonise the entire universe?

Naturally, there will be tragedies, accidents, wars, setbacks, many worlds (including earth) will be gone, but is it possible?. With politics aside, Initially I said...no. Then realised, that if we managed to colonise our solar system, why not the galaxy? why not another one? why not all of them?

There's a lot of factors involved, some of which we do not yet know of....lets have an indepth discussion!!!

http://www.mat.ucsb.edu/~woony/research/fall01/mat596b/universe.jpg

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

1) Do you think humans will ever colonise planets other than earth?

all I can say is, hopefully. I'm doubtful that even Mars will be colonised within my lifetime, due to the difficulties engendered by capitalism.


2) Do you think humanity will ever colonise the entire galaxy?

Depends on the outcome of question 1, but in any case it will be very difficult (And lengthy) without some form of viable FTL


3) Do you think, with an infinite amount of time to waste, that humanity will, one day, colonise the entire universe?

Once again, I cannot answer this question with any certainty. I do know however that we do not have an infinite amount of time - the heat death of the universe looms in a couple of hundred billion years.

Entropy will get us no matter what we do.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Well, I think number one will probably happen, and once that happens (on Mars, presumably, then number two is more likely to happen, and if number two happens, then I would think that number three would be very likely happen also. But to set up a colony in an other solar system, you'd need a space ship that could be self-sustaining for hundreds or thousands of years, because even if the space ship was moving at the speed of light it would take that long to reach the other solar system. And what are the odds that everyone on the space ship wouldn't die before it got there? Then there would be no way of communicating with them to see if they made it or not.

[Organic Revolution]

when it happens they are going to use up all the resources and hae to move on or die.

[Forward Union]

This is true, however, we do not know what alien elements and resources lay out in the vastness of space...or even other civilisations.

[Lord Testicles]

1) Do you think humans will ever colonise planets other than earth?

Probably only if we get off our arses and take a few risks i think it will probably start with mining operations on moons and whatnot for metals to suport our growth.


2) Do you think humanity will ever colonise the entire galaxy?

only if number 1 happens and it will take millions of years for for the entire galaxy to become colonised


3) Do you think, with an infinite amount of time to waste, that humanity will, one day, colonise the entire universe?

no. never will this happen space is so large that by the time people get from point A to point B that they will forgret al about point A or they will set up myths about point A and will strive to get there again thinking it as being some kind of heven. And you have to take into account the fact of other life, the universe is so large that life simular to us must have evolved somewere and we may never come in to contact with these beings because space is so large but if we do meet them were not going to colonise there planets now are we? and therefor we may never colonise the entire universe, we would have to make some startaling advances in a means of propultion and communication to do so.

[slim]

Colonising space is in the far future. I can see a base or two on Mars but first they have to be self sustaining. Farms for oxygen and food alike. Access to nitrogen.

I also found out something about waste disposal. Maggots are excellent at eating excriment. There is no odour and nothing left. Only clear water is left. Very strange and interesting.

[Lord Testicles]

You couldnt use just maggots there will be a huge population of flies lol

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 10:21 AM
no. never will this happen space is so large that by the time people get from point A to point B that they will forgret al about point A or they will set up myths about point A and will strive to get there again thinking it as being some kind of heven.
.An interesting point, though, if transportation is advanced to the form of, using wormholes or instantaneous transportation. I feel it will be extremely possible to get from A to B in a matter of seconds.


And you have to take into account the fact of other life, the universe is so large that life simular to us must have evolved somewere and we may never come in to contact with these beings because space is so large but if we do meet them were not going to colonise there planets now are we? and therefor we may never colonise the entire universe, we would have to make some startaling advances in a means of propultion and communication to do so.

Yes, true, but this other life may be inferior, or superior, or more than likely we will find civilisations composed of both traits. Then again, if we colonised everywhere in the universe, apart from the areas colonised by other species, can you really envision an ETERNAL equilibrium? will we truly never war with these species?

Perhaps we shouldn't go to far into this, if the species was naturally hostile, or lived in a caste based on the suffering of the majority....whether or not we intervene is a matter of ethics which I don't want to address.

But to re word the question, without there being "human territory" and "Alien territory" do you believe humans will one day visit, and live across the entire universe?

[Vallegrande]

Disease would become more vast than we can imagine. Knowing that solar systems contain different organisms, like bacteria, who knows what illnesses we could pick up.

About space travel, we are all made up of bacteria and such. Now I know that spores can travel through space, as has been shown in the ancient idea of panspermia (Anaxagoras). Is that the same with bacteria?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Disease would become more vast than we can imagine. Knowing that solar systems contain different organisms, like bacteria, who knows what illnesses we could pick up.

Most likely alien microrganisms wouldn't be able to effect us to any significant degree - I might remind you that you are more likely to be infected with Dutch Elm disease than any form of alien plague, as at least Dutch Elm Disease evolved on the same planet.
Still, that doesn't prevent us being carriers - any old bacterium can lodge on your skin, in your saliva and lungs, etc.


About space travel, we are all made up of bacteria and such. Now I know that spores can travel through space, as has been shown in the ancient idea of panspermia (Anaxagoras). Is that the same with bacteria?

While panspermia is an unlikely process in the propogation of life in the universe (Mainly due to the huge distanes involved - the universe is too young for life to have spread that way), organic compounds (such as sugars) have been found in space. this means that it's possible life might be able to form independently of any planet.

[tantric]

if it were possible, it would have happened already

why is the universe not full of intelligence? why are the skies not full of radiowaves?

i actually have an idea as to why, but orthodox socialists won't like the answer.

religion.

technology is just a phase. it does not lead to joy - it leads to ecocannibalism.

why no radio signals? telepathy is more efficient. why no spaceships? astral travel is easier. they are here, waiting, hoping - and if we are ever ready, we will become angels/bodhisattvas, and leave the flesh behind.

but no time in the near future.

:P

[Xvall]

why is the universe not full of intelligence?

It is.


religion.

You can stop there. Don't get me wrong. I'm not really an "orthodox socialist" and I'm all for the notion transcendence and all, but religion is not a very good answer to the workings of the universe.

[More Fire for the People]

1) Do you think humans will ever colonise planets other than earth?
Most definetly, I predict that by 2100 humans will be living on Mars, Ganymede, Callisto, and perhaps even Mercury. Now as for colonization of other solar systems, perhaps but this would soley depend on the speed of interstellar travel and communication. I don't see this as a true plausibility unless we develop a method of faster-than-light communication.


2) Do you think humanity will ever colonise the entire galaxy?
No, but I do think we will have a general understanding of our galaxy and have colonized a good portion of it.

and the real question....


3) Do you think, with an infinite amount of time to waste, that humanity will, one day, colonise the entire universe?
No, as this would take near-infinite resources and the universe has a limited ammount of time (for us that is).

[Xvall]

Jesus you people are optimistic.

[Iepilei]

Expecting humanity to survive isn't optimistic, it's our intent. As our population grows we will have to colonise planets other than this to sustain ourselves. Even if we figure out nano-assembly and create effecient energy sources (hot fusion, dark matter engines, hydrogen, etc.) we will still have to spread out as to prevent an over-concentration of our population.

:ph34r:

[tantric]

people have this odd tendency to confuse religion with monotheism.

scientific humanism is a religion. orthodox communism is a religion.

if you have a cosmology, a teleology, an eschatology and an epistomology, you have a religion. having a shrine with pickled dead saints is also pretty indicative.

it would be hard to imagine a sentient being without a religion.

the thing about buddhism is that science and buddhism are great together. most all buddhist have ditched the old cosmology (mt. meru, the blue people that live 500yrs on the north face, the gods in their antigravity cars, etc) in favor of science. the scientific method leading to quantum physics is an interesting echo of buddhism epistemology.

so is it so hard to believe that the future of humanity is enlightenment and transcendence or extinction? you're not addressing the fundamental paradox - if FTL space travel is possible, why hasn't it already happened?

i mean, really - do you imagine the future to be like star trek? hi tech toys and 20th society? you can't imagine the future, inherently.

[Lord Testicles]

i dont see why it isnt possable look how far we've come in 100 years = electricity, cars, limited space travel (to the moon and whatnot), radio, tv, telephones. so how long until we work out nano technology or a for of travel equal or grater than the speed of light ?

[Umoja]

1)

We've had the technology to live in space since the 70's. We just no longer have the motivation. Corporate interest seem to be the new source of motivation, or maybe a new American-Chinese rivalry. I don't see it as unlikely for cities to be made in space.

All you need is a big enough rock.

2) Do you think humanity will ever colonise the entire galaxy?

Humanity might not, but our creations might. Mass is the primary problem when it comes to velocity. If we could send robots to create colonies, that would be far easier.

3) Do you think, with an infinite amount of time to waste, that humanity will, one day, colonise the entire universe?

It's possible.

[Des]

ahh but none of us here will live to see such things...

bummer... the future could be so interesting and we'll miss out!

[Zingu]

Actually, we won't be able to colonize planets outside of the Earth's event horizon...simply because we couldn't reach them!

Since the universe is constantly expanding, theres a certain point where everything outside of it would never be reachable to earth; including light from there, this is called an event horizon, so think of it as an imaginary sphere around earth of all possible places to reach by traveling normally, everything outside of this sphere, no matter how fast we go, we will never reach since the universe's expansion will always outspeed us.

Its impossible to go or faster than the speed of light.

What we could do is warp space to reach such places without moving, which is the only possible way to (unless we want to get into the strange world of quantum mechanics!).

Theoritically we already know how to create new universes in labs, but the amount of power it would take is so enormous, it would seem impossible at today's technology.

Then there is the question of escaping this universe when it "dies", which is an whole other story, which phycists are already thinking about! ;)


The colonization of the solar system will come faster than anyone can imagine, technology progresses exponationally, getting faster and faster in progression all the time (its been proven, just look at a timeline of scientific progress).

Its coming in our lifetime!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

people have this odd tendency to confuse religion with monotheism.

Monotheism is a form of religion.


scientific humanism is a religion. orthodox communism is a religion.

No, they are not. Science and communism do not make definitive statements about the universe, religion does.


if you have a cosmology, a teleology, an eschatology and an epistomology, you have a religion. having a shrine with pickled dead saints is also pretty indicative.

Completely and utterly wrong. Guessing the workings of the universe and living your life in a particular manner are not the same as having a religion.


it would be hard to imagine a sentient being without a religion.

Actually, it's pretty easy, and it has a name: The rational human being.


the thing about buddhism is that science and buddhism are great together. most all buddhist have ditched the old cosmology (mt. meru, the blue people that live 500yrs on the north face, the gods in their antigravity cars, etc) in favor of science. the scientific method leading to quantum physics is an interesting echo of buddhism epistemology.

No, it is not. Quantum theory has at least a passing familiarity with reality, while some random old holy man is just making guesses.


so is it so hard to believe that the future of humanity is enlightenment and transcendence or extinction? you're not addressing the fundamental paradox - if FTL space travel is possible, why hasn't it already happened?

There are a number of possibilities - We're the first spacefaring species to exist in the universe, all other intelligent aliens are either "apes" or "angels", or life is so incredibly rare in the galaxy that even the most hyper-advaned aliens haven't reached us, or FTL travel is impossible.


i mean, really - do you imagine the future to be like star trek? hi tech toys and 20th society? you can't imagine the future, inherently.

What?

[Xvall]

Expecting humanity to survive isn't optimistic, it's our intent.

Actually, it is extremely optimistic. The average lifespan of a species is short, in the grand scheme of things, and it's very rational to assume that one day we're all going to die, quite possibly, at the rate we're going, before we "colonize" the mostly lifeless and resourcless surroundings nearby.

Of course, it is entirely possible. I just don't think that it's going to go as flawlessly and easilly as many people assume it will. My optimism wasn't really referring to the general realm of space travel, by the way; mainly just one person's notion that we will have human populations on various planets within 100 years.

Additionally, these all seem like things we except to happen if we were in charge, which we are not. I doubt most of the world's nations are striving very hard to achieve any of these goals. The closet I've seen, at this point, were George's claims that he was going to launch a mission to Mars, which he may not even do, and which, quite frankly, seems completely pointless to me at this point in time.

[tantric]

Monotheism is a form of religion.

noted.




scientific humanism is a religion. orthodox communism is a religion.

No, they are not. Science and communism do not make definitive statements about the universe, religion does.



science doesn't make definitive statements about the universe? since when? "you can't travel faster than light" "the universe is infinite" communism even has *prophecy*. that business about the perfect future of the workers' state, the one we all have to sacrifice in this lifetime for? does that involve screwing virgins, too? whereas science has the heat-death of the universe - oh, but that's REAL and TRUE, so it's not religion, right?

and, btw, buddhism does NOT make definitive statements about anything outside the human condition. we say "the universe is unproblematic, it is our perception of reality that is transparent to anaylysis". (i don't really consider "unproblematic" as being definitive, since it really has no meaning)





if you have a cosmology, a teleology, an eschatology and an epistomology, you have a religion. having a shrine with pickled dead saints is also pretty indicative.

Completely and utterly wrong. Guessing the workings of the universe and living your life in a particular manner are not the same as having a religion.


semantics. what you are saying is: religion is wrong, i'm right, so what i have isn't religion. BS. another good indicator of religion is INTOLERANCE and EXCLUSION.




it would be hard to imagine a sentient being without a religion.

Actually, it's pretty easy, and it has a name: The rational human being.

i'm rubber, you're glue..etc :P see above




the thing about buddhism is that science and buddhism are great together. most all buddhist have ditched the old cosmology (mt. meru, the blue people that live 500yrs on the north face, the gods in their antigravity cars, etc) in favor of science. the scientific method leading to quantum physics is an interesting echo of buddhism epistemology.

No, it is not. Quantum theory has at least a passing familiarity with reality, while some random old holy man is just making guesses.

the physicists disagree with you there - they are probably the most spiritual of all scientists. buddhist epistemology is based on hardcore logical analysis. since the lamas and the scientists are analysing the same thing with the same methods, one would expect similar conclusions.




i mean, really - do you imagine the future to be like star trek? hi tech toys and 20th society? you can't imagine the future, inherently.

What?

has anyone ever successfully imagined the future? it's fun, yes, but the whole bit with magical ships that fly around through space, well - it's fantasy. fantasy is myth and myth is religion.

this is mostly off topic and i have a feeling it will get moved to the flame section fairly soon. thus, i'd like to say, i'm over it. just trying to make a point - there are other options for the future, things more strange and wonderful than starwars. "childhood's end" is a good look at such a possibility, but, still, it's just a fantasy. and generally, peace and enlightment are boring compared to gallavanting around and blowing up planets. thus...


oh, and to address another point - population pressure. this will NEVER drive the colonization of other planets. consider: the cost of taking a human, lifting him to orbit, keeping him alive, sending him to mars, buiding a habitat he can live in, etc. on the other hand, consider a bullet to the head. or a nice bioweapon.

[Xvall]

Noxion doesn't have a religion. I'm not sure what part of that you don't understand. You seem to be confusing "religion" with "ideology" or "belief system" - there is an enormous difference.

[Che NJ]

I think we could colonize places like mars, gaynemede, castillo, and europa, if we are not destroyed by some comet or asteroid first. Our clock is ticking and we need to spread out or we will die.

If we do manage to move out of our solar system we will not get very far. We may manage to colonize some surrounding stars, but if we get beyond that it will take millions of years. For me, the universe is out of the question. The time it would take to leave our galaxy is inconceivable. Some of you think that FTL travel will speed things up a bit, but I am convinced that FTL is impossible. E=MC2 should explain that no object can outrun a photon because it has the highest energy to mass ratio. I also think that wormholes cannot be created because we, as humans cannot manipulate the materials needed to create one.

Capitalists have little to no interest in seriously looking into the idea of space travel just because it would cost so much money. And just let me say that I would not support them if they did want to go to space because there are alot of people who could really use the money dedicated to a capitalist space project. But if we were in charge I would strongly support the exploration of space.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

science doesn't make definitive statements about the universe? since when? "you can't travel faster than light" "the universe is infinite"

All scientific statements are 'to the best of our knowledge'. It takes a truely massive massive amount of energy to reach even tiny fractions of C - this is not some declaration that science makes, thats how reality is. Therefore, to the best of our knowledge, only massless photons can travel at C.
And, to the best of our knowledge, the universe is finite because it fits in with what we already know.

The main and most important difference between science and religion is that science works when applied to reality. Airplanes don't fly because of faith.


communism even has *prophecy*. that business about the perfect future of the workers' state, the one we all have to sacrifice in this lifetime for? does that involve screwing virgins, too? whereas science has the heat-death of the universe - oh, but that's REAL and TRUE, so it's not religion, right?

Science is not an immutable dogma, it only makes observations upon reality.
Communism is in the same vein - it makes predictions based upon what is known about class society, and when material conditions change, those predictions also change.
If you call communism a religion you might as well call meteorology a religion as well, totally abusing the original meaning of the term.

Weather reports change. Revelation doesn't.


and, btw, buddhism does NOT make definitive statements about anything outside the human condition. we say "the universe is unproblematic, it is our perception of reality that is transparent to anaylysis". (i don't really consider "unproblematic" as being definitive, since it really has no meaning)

Subjectivism is a wonderful retreat for those who cannot face reality.


semantics. what you are saying is: religion is wrong, i'm right, so what i have isn't religion. BS. another good indicator of religion is INTOLERANCE and EXCLUSION.

Ah, a fucktard who cannot read. Very well, I will explain to you slowly:

re·li·gion Audio pronunciation of "Religion" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

1.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Now, going by that last definition, science and communism may well be a religion to some. But that usage is in the same style of "Modelling and wargaming were his life" - this doesn't actually mean that modelling and wargaming are this person's actual life, it merely means that they have a voracious interest.

Science and communism do not require belief in a supernatural, communist theoreticians and scientists are not worshipped, and both change to fit reality. Your attempts to claim that science and communism are religions is semantic bullfuckery.


i'm rubber, you're glue..etc :P see above

I was actually being serious, but obviously you were to busy being an immature shitstain to notice.


the physicists disagree with you there - they are probably the most spiritual of all scientists.

Bullshit! Unless you can prove that most of the world's quantum physicists are Buddhist.


Buddhist epistemology is based on hardcore logical analysis.

Postmodernist trash. Have you actually read any Buddhist literature? It's so vague and airy-fairy you can read almost anything into it, rather like most other religious texts. Quite the opposite of science papers, which use internationally recognised well-defined terms.


since the lamas and the scientists are analysing the same thing with the same methods, one would expect similar conclusions.

More fucking crap, unless these lamas have been hiding a particle accelerator all these centuries. Some old fart preaching on a mountaintop isn't good enough to make educated guesses about the universe. You need actual experiments, observations and mathematics.


has anyone ever successfully imagined the future? it's fun, yes, but the whole bit with magical ships that fly around through space, well - it's fantasy. fantasy is myth and myth is religion.

Someone's been living in a cave. Have you never heard of the Apollo Program or the Space Shuttles? Space travel is real. We just need to develop more technologies, and more importantly have the political and testicular fortitude to actually do something about it, and we'll be touching down on Mars anytime within the next century.


this is mostly off topic and i have a feeling it will get moved to the flame section fairly soon. thus, i'd like to say, i'm over it. just trying to make a point - there are other options for the future, things more strange and wonderful than starwars. "childhood's end" is a good look at such a possibility, but, still, it's just a fantasy. and generally, peace and enlightment are boring compared to gallavanting around and blowing up planets. thus...

I'm sorry, but to get peace and enlightenment, you have to be willing to do a bit of bayonet work. That's the fucking point. You can sit in your ivory tower for as long as you like, but you will be unprepared when the barbarians come knocking.


oh, and to address another point - population pressure. this will NEVER drive the colonization of other planets. consider: the cost of taking a human, lifting him to orbit, keeping him alive, sending him to mars, buiding a habitat he can live in, etc. on the other hand, consider a bullet to the head. or a nice bioweapon.

Look up "Space Elevators" "Carbon Nanotubes" and "Buckyballs" and get back to us.
Looking for solutions is better than *****ing about apocalyptic scenarios.

[tantric]

here's some science for ya:

the monkey reflex - when a monkey is threatened, it will shriek, wave it's arms around and throw shit. humans, being higher apes, usually just talk shit.

you have confused your ideology with your identity. i threatened the ideology, you feel threatened....you get the picture.

generally, in a rational debate, the first person to resort to insults loses by default, but that's no fun.

if you can be rational, mr. science, start a new thread

and, btw, since when do dictionaries NOT have the meanings of words? airplanes may not fly because of faith - but bumblebees do. you should also consider godel's incompleteness theorem, or any other bit of pure math, which requires nothing but logic and thought, etc . . . i could go on, but when faced with an enraged monkey, sane beings look to the ground and back away slowly. besides, i have SCIENCE to do, that being what i do, and rather well.

to be clear, ALL HUMANS ARE MONKEYS - this is not an insult.

"The religion of the future will be cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual and a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. . . If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism."

-Albert Einstein

ps - i've read *thousands* of scifi books. just finished "ilium". DS rocks!

on second thought - here's the challenge: consider scientific humanism, theravada buddhism, orthodox communism and sunni islam. include, by traits, SH and OC in one group and SI and TB in another. interestingly, many monotheists i've debated with refuse to consider TB a religion. to them, it's a philosophy. i use the simple "walks like a duck" method - when people start foaming and branding heretics, well, they have religion. then again, buddhists don't often do that...go figure.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

generally, in a rational debate, the first person to resort to insults loses by default, but that's no fun.

Style over substance fallacy, moron. I did not just insult you, I also provided a cogent argument. Don't use my potty mouth as an excuse to ignore my points.


and, btw, since when do dictionaries NOT have the meanings of words? airplanes may not fly because of faith - but bumblebees do.

Utter crap! Bees have merely evolved to take advantage of fluid dynamics, they cannot even concieve of the concept of faith.


i could go on, but when faced with an enraged monkey, sane beings look to the ground and back away slowly. besides, i have SCIENCE to do, that being what i do, and rather well.

You have demonstrated nothing of the sort. You have displayed nothing but typical postmodernist anti-enlightenment sentiment in addition to not addressing my points.


to be clear, ALL HUMANS ARE MONKEYS - this is not an insult.

Incorrect. Humans are a species of the Ape family.


"The religion of the future will be cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual and a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. . . If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism."

-Albert Einstein

Nice Appeal to Authority there. Do you practice?


on second thought - here's the challenge: consider scientific humanism, theravada buddhism, orthodox communism and sunni islam. include, by traits, SH and OC in one group and SI and TB in another. interestingly, many monotheists i've debated with refuse to consider TB a religion. to them, it's a philosophy. i use the simple "walks like a duck" method - when people start foaming and branding heretics, well, they have religion. then again, buddhists don't often do that...go figure.

You've simply confused religion with mindless extremism, which the left is certainly not free of. Religion is irrational but not necessarily extremist.

Now try avoiding the style over substance fallacy.

[tantric]

I would hope that when we venture out into the universe, that communism will be as a faded memory of juvenile folly. Because if we still have communism when we meet a sentient species, the zealous will deride them as capitalists in disguise, and so,.humanity will be doomed to an existance of xenophobic isolation.

right, fanatacism is okay when you possess the sole and only truth? yeee

--your quote is silly - buddhists would embrace aliens, we always have. did we exterminate shinto or taoism? not at all. and yes, i practice - science, buddhism and socialism. three impossible things before breakfast!

the thing is, you need an operational definition of religion. this is rather hard to do. nevertheless, in comparing communism to islam, i am reminding of lily tomlin's "search for signs of intelligent life in the universe". she is trying to teach an alien about earthly values. "look, this is SOUP, this is ART. --->ART. ---->SOUP. now, let's test you, which is which?" the dictionary makes it pretty clear that if you are a fanatic about a cause, especially one with a charismatic founder, that cause is a religion. i would prefer my definition, of cosmology, et al.

the point about bees - this is a joking reference to an urban myth. airplanes don't fly on faith? what got the wright bros off the ground in a world that *knew* manned flight was impossible. however, this has nothing to do with whether or not OC/SH are religions.

humans are apes are monkeys are primates are mammals....eukaryotes....etc. this has nothing to do with whether or not communism/SH are religions.

i have an endocrinology examn this week, if you want to discuss this nicely, start a new thread. i'll give it some thought in the meantime. peace

[Xvall]

Whoa, whoa - when the hell did we start talking about aliens?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

--your quote is silly - buddhists would embrace aliens, we always have. did we exterminate shinto or taoism? not at all. and yes, i practice - science, buddhism and socialism. three impossible things before breakfast!

So once again, instead of addressing my points, you go off on a tangent, this time about my signature. Answer my arguments fucktard and stop dodging.


the thing is, you need an operational definition of religion. this is rather hard to do. nevertheless, in comparing communism to islam, i am reminding of lily tomlin's "search for signs of intelligent life in the universe". she is trying to teach an alien about earthly values. "look, this is SOUP, this is ART. --->ART. ---->SOUP. now, let's test you, which is which?" the dictionary makes it pretty clear that if you are a fanatic about a cause, especially one with a charismatic founder, that cause is a religion. i would prefer my definition, of cosmology, et al.

I have given you a definition of religion, and you have simply ignored it. Repeating post-modernist cliches of what religion is ad infinitum will not change that. I have demonstrated how zeal for a cause does not make that cause religion, but you have thrown up a Wall of Ignorance.


the point about bees - this is a joking reference to an urban myth. airplanes don't fly on faith? what got the wright bros off the ground in a world that *knew* manned flight was impossible. however, this has nothing to do with whether or not OC/SH are religions.

Which they are not. no deities, no rituals, no holy men ordained by some higher power/purpose. Both are a matter of pure self-interest.


humans are apes are monkeys are primates are mammals....eukaryotes....etc. this has nothing to do with whether or not communism/SH are religions.

So what the fuck are you trying to say exactly? It does not say much for your self-aggrandised intelligence that you cannot put a concept into simple words.


i have an endocrinology examn this week, if you want to discuss this nicely, start a new thread. i'll give it some thought in the meantime. peace

How about you stop dodging and actually debate me, you unrepentant bullshitter?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 01:34 AM
Whoa, whoa - when the hell did we start talking about aliens?
As soon as Tantric realised that he/she was incapable of actual debate.

[rahul]

Originally posted by answers by rahul
1) Do you think humans will ever colonise planets other than earth?

i think YES.

2) Do you think humanity will ever colonise the entire galaxy?

i think YES

3) Do you think, with an infinite amount of time to waste, that humanity will, one day, colonise the entire universe?

provided development continues till time ends.........i think most of them are possible

http://www.mat.ucsb.edu/~woony/research/fall01/mat596b/universe.jpg
:-)

[Xvall]

Good response.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Space travel is real. We just need to develop more technologies, and more importantly have the political and testicular fortitude to actually do something about it, and we'll be touching down on Mars anytime within the next century.

*puts on a cup*

[Gnosis]

If you can concieve of it in your mind, then theoretically it is possible to experience it within the physical plane.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 06:38 AM
If you can concieve of it in your mind, then theoretically it is possible to experience it within the physical plane.
Bullshit. I can concieve of weak nuclear force ceasing to exist, but that ain't gonna happen, 'cause the laws of physics as we know them forbid it.

Conversely, I cannot concieve two atoms fusing together in a nuclear reaction. Does that mean it doesn't happen? No!

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 04:52 AM

:-)
He doth Speaketh true words.

[Gnosis]

Bullshit. I can concieve of weak nuclear force ceasing to exist, but that ain't gonna happen, 'cause the laws of physics as we know them forbid it.

I disagree, you cannot concieve of weak nuclear force ceasing to exist.
You cannot concieve either of weak nuclear force or the concept of ceased existence.
How do I assume such things?
Because I can tell you are not conscious of yourself or your environment.
If you were, your arguements would not be so weak and easy to dismiss.

"Weak nuclear forces" are not the laws of physics, they are the nature of the universe as labled by humans who lable their role in life 'physicist'.



Conversely, I cannot concieve two atoms fusing together in a nuclear reaction.

I disagree. You may concieve of two atoms fusing together to form a nuclear reaction if you would stop talking for a moment long enough to really consider the concept before giving up and deciding you ultimately do not care or have the capacity to learn.


Does that mean it doesn't happen? No!

Again I disagree. Your not being able to concieve of a nuclear reaction does exactly mean it does not happen within your egocentric mind scape.

If you were to have first hand experience in witnessing a nuclear reaction, you would be able to accurately judge whether or not the actions which took place do or do not occur, but since you have no factual experience in the matter, I suggest you keep quiet and focus more on learning than on teaching.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I disagree, you cannot concieve of weak nuclear force ceasing to exist.
You cannot concieve either of weak nuclear force or the concept of ceased existence.

Oh rubbish. Look at it this way - there is a tree in the middle of the field behind my garden. It exists because I can see it, I've been up to it and felt it's solidity, it looks almost exactly like oak trees I have seen in photos and described in books. I can interact with it, others can interact with it, so it is not just an illusion.

I can also imagine it not being there, just a patch of grass, just another field without a tree. Cannot concieve of ceased existance? Disproven.


Because I can tell you are not conscious of yourself or your environment.
If you were, your arguements would not be so weak and easy to dismiss.

You haven't dismissed my arguments. I am conscious of myself, I can feel my bowel movements, I can feel my tongue moving over my palate and against my teeth.
I conscious of my environment, I can feel the dogtags around my neck, can feel the chair under me, can hear the music playing on my computer, can feel the keys on my keyboard as I am typing this, etc etc.


"Weak nuclear forces" are not the laws of physics, they are the nature of the universe as labled by humans who lable their role in life 'physicist'.

If you want to play the semantics game, the laws of physics is just a label we use for how the universe works as we know it.

But whatever label we give them, they happen to be real.


I disagree. You may concieve of two atoms fusing together to form a nuclear reaction if you would stop talking for a moment long enough to really consider the concept before giving up and deciding you ultimately do not care or have the capacity to learn.

Really? Have you even seen an atom? (and I mean an actual atom, not just a diagram or a representation) Have you seen two fuse together in a reaction? I know I haven't, but they still exist.


Again I disagree. Your not being able to concieve of a nuclear reaction does exactly mean it does not happen within your egocentric mind scape.

I'm talking about material reality. You know, that annoying presence you feel outside yourself?


If you were to have first hand experience in witnessing a nuclear reaction, you would be able to accurately judge whether or not the actions which took place do or do not occur, but since you have no factual experience in the matter, I suggest you keep quiet and focus more on learning than on teaching.

Fuck your arrogance!

[Xvall]

Damn Gnosis, you're philosophical as all hell. :lol:

[Gnosis]

Oh rubbish. Look at it this way - there is a tree in the middle of the field behind my garden. It exists because I can see it, I've been up to it and felt it's solidity, it looks almost exactly like oak trees I have seen in photos and described in books. I can interact with it, others can interact with it, so it is not just an illusion.

I can also imagine it not being there, just a patch of grass, just another field without a tree. Cannot concieve of ceased existance? Disproven.

This does not prove anything about you being able to concieve of the ceased existence of weak nuclear force.

The tree exists because you can see it?
Or you can see it because it exists?

Can you feel a tree when you put your hand to it, or are you feeling the atoms of your hand resisting the atoms of the tree?
If so, you are not feeling the tree, but instead the resistence created by your hand and that tree and the way they interact with each other.

All illusions are made to be interacted with by the human mind.
That is not to say that tree is necessarily an "illusion" exactly.

You may not concieve of non-existence because the very conception destroys the non-existent property of that which you may not concieve of.

To concieve of ceased existence is to give existence to a concept which is intended to represent ceased existence but ultimately fails so long as it still exists as a concept.

You may not experience non-existence because by nature it does not exist, and by nature you do exist.
In order to achieve the conception of non-existence, you must be non-existent.

You may concieve of weak nuclear force, and you may concieve of the deterioration of that force, but beyond the deterioration process you may go no further.

You may imagoine a universe lacking weak nuclaer fore, but that is not the same as concieving of the ceased existence of weak nuclear force.


You haven't dismissed my arguments. I am conscious of myself, I can feel my bowel movements, I can feel my tongue moving over my palate and against my teeth.
I conscious of my environment, I can feel the dogtags around my neck, can feel the chair under me, can hear the music playing on my computer, can feel the keys on my keyboard as I am typing this, etc etc.

You have proven your conciousness of your ego and those perceptions and activities you believe that ego carries out.

But how concious can I assume you are when some of the first words you use against me are "Bullshit" and "ain't".

Its been my experience that people who think these words are good examples of a respectable conciousness and a highly evolved intellect are rather the opposite of what they claim to be.

You were attempting to disprove my statements and in the process exceeded at only advertising your own ignorence.
What am I supposed to do, take your words and replace my own thoughts with them?
How am I supposed to take you seriously?
Would you advocate for the degradation of my consciousness?


If you want to play the semantics game, the laws of physics is just a label we use for how the universe works as we know it.

But whatever label we give them, they happen to be real.

I say that it is our combined responsablity to make sure everyone here is as well informed and intelligent (or at least intelligent sounding) as possible.
I am not trying to play games with you, merely give you the correct information necessary to lift your mind out of the smog you've been born into.

I feel we all have the potential to be the revolution in all aspects of our lives, and one way to do so is to be as intelligent, conscious, and respectable as possible or none of us will ever be taken seriously.

Repeating what I've said to you back to me is not an effective argument.


I'm talking about material reality. You know, that annoying presence you feel outside yourself?

I understand what you are talking about, but I will always try to show you that there is more.

By the way, I can be as arrogant as I want to be, but I was not trying to be and even though I wish you would not misinterpret my words, I will never apologize to you.

Besides, you're just as arrogant as I am, all you need is a bit of introversion to recognize that.

Im serious, though, you should try to learn more, you've got alot of potential.