Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?

[Tacenda]

What?  You're asking for a CFR on my personal opinion and belief?  Fine, I can provide it!  Yes, that is what I believe: that the United States should have continued to fund space flight, and if they had done so, then there would have been a colony on the Moon by now, and there could have been 10,000 persons in that colony.  And, having continued to provide funding for space exploration, we would have already had a manned expedition to Mars.

 

What is SETI?  Nothing more nor less than a boondoggle.  Aside from the so-called WOW! signal, which never reoccurred, all effort and funding handed out for SETI has been a complete waste.  We NEED to be on the Moon.  We NEED to be headed to Mars.  We NEED to be developing routine interplanetary space travel.  Even if an extraterrestrial signal could be confirmed, all it would do is fuel speculation.  There is too much lag time for a meaningful conversation with ET.  Unless ET is living on a planet in the Alpha Centauri system.  But we've been listening to that system only 4.2 light years away, and haven't heard a squeak yet.  Either because there are no inhabited planets there, or no inhabitants capable of transmitting.

 

When President Nixon was busy grandstanding, congratulating Neil Armstrong for his achievement in 1969, his administration was already in the throes of planning for the drawdown of funding for space exploration.  THAT is what I was complaining about.  We had the technology and the infrastructure at that time, but we let it go.

Your name is Stargazer, I get it now!

[thesometimesaint]

Oh, you make decent points, but I don't think a genuine ET signal would make all that much difference.  Contact is one of my favorite movies, but I have to suspend a lot of belief to get in good with it.  That there would be some maniac from Panguitch, Utah, who would blow himself up to stop The Machine just left me laughing.  Ever been to Panguitch?  No?  Neither have I.  In fact, hardly anyone is from Panguitch, let alone been there.

 

I've participated in SETI@Home in the past, but I don't think its worthwhile these days.  Mainly because I think it is highly unlikely there is a radiating civilization close enough to us to enable capturing any of its signals.  Signal to noise ratios and the inverse square law just make it seem a wasted effort.

 

My personal preference is a massive infusion of funding into interplanetary exploration.  I'd gladly trade an ET signal for a lunar or a martian colony, or even for an O'Neill colony at either L4 or L5.  

 

Your entitled to your preference, of course.

 

Thought you might like this.

SEE

[CV75]

Many mainstream Christians would probably respond to this question using some version of the cosmological argument. 

 

I think ultimately, from the perspective of Mormon theology, we'd have to defer to scientific rather than theological explanations, as Mormon theology does not seem to answer this question as far as I can tell. But I'd be interested in everyone's thoughts on the topic. 

Please allow me to reply with song:

[TheSkepticChristian]

Thought you might like this.

SEE

 

Interesting video 

[Stargazer]

Thought you might like this.

SEE

 

Oh, yes, I have been following New Horizons since before it was launched.  It's almost there!  I can't wait!  I only wish they had been able to put it into orbit around Pluto.  But that would have required a much longer mission, and the electric generation system would have been left with too little power to do much with the instruments. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

Oh, yes, I have been following New Horizons since before it was launched.  It's almost there!  I can't wait!  I only wish they had been able to put it into orbit around Pluto.  

 

I want that to go outside our solar system 

[thesometimesaint]

I want that to go outside our solar system 

 

Lot depends of what we call the outside of our solar system. When New Horizons was launched Pluto was still a planet. Then came the discovery of the Kuiper Belt, and more recently the Oort Cloud. The boundaries of our solar system keep being pushed further and further out.

[Stargazer]

I want that to go outside our solar system 

 

Yeah, well, there's only so many interplanetary probes to go around.  It's like the two Voyagers, though.  By the time it leaves the solar system there won't be a lot of power left in the craft to do much.  I am going to have to be satisfied that they might do a flyby on one or more other plutoids or Kuiper Belt objects. 

 

What I would like to see is a dedicated mission to explore the heliopause and beyond -- one with sufficient power on board by the time it gets there to do a lot of new science.  But there is no such mission envisioned, I fear.  New Horizons is going to be awhile before it reaches that point.  The Voyagers are still transmitting data, and will continue to do so until 2025; we can expect NH to continue the tradition.

 

What I would have liked with New Horizons would have been to orbit Pluto like the Galileo spacecraft orbits Saturn.

[Stargazer]

Lot depends of what we call the outside of our solar system. When New Horizons was launched Pluto was still a planet. Then came the discovery of the Kuiper Belt, and more recently the Oort Cloud. The boundaries of our solar system keep being pushed further and further out.

 

Voyager I is now considered to be in interstellar space, having crossed the heliopause in August 2012.

[thesometimesaint]

Yeah, well, there's only so many interplanetary probes to go around.  It's like the two Voyagers, though.  By the time it leaves the solar system there won't be a lot of power left in the craft to do much.  I am going to have to be satisfied that they might do a flyby on one or more other plutoids or Kuiper Belt objects. 

 

What I would like to see is a dedicated mission to explore the heliopause and beyond -- one with sufficient power on board by the time it gets there to do a lot of new science.  But there is no such mission envisioned, I fear.  New Horizons is going to be awhile before it reaches that point.  The Voyagers are still transmitting data, and will continue to do so until 2025; we can expect NH to continue the tradition.

 

What I would have liked with New Horizons would have been to orbit Pluto like the Galileo spacecraft orbits Saturn.

 

It is all about power to weight/mass ratios. It just takes a lot more power to maintain an orbit than a flyby, and weight/mass is a serious consideration for long term flight even in space. In the near future(2030's) we expect to land a man on Mars. Hope I live to see it.

Edited June 17, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[TheSkepticChristian]

It is all about power to weight/mass ratios. It just takes a lot more power to maintain an orbit than a flyby, and weight/mass is a serious consideration for long term flight even in space. In the near future(2030's) we expect to land a man on Mars. Hope I live to see it.

 

Voyager I is now considered to be in interstellar space, having crossed the heliopause in August 2012.

 

It is amazing that scientists know exactly when the Voyager is going to flyby Pluto after a 3 billion mile trip. It is sad that many here in the MDDB think that science is not credible. It is true that scientists are sometimes wrong, but the general public is wrong all the time. 

 

It is sad that many here in the MDDB don't trust the scientific community, not even when the scientific community is highly confident about something that is very important. It is sad that many here think internet blogs and partisan news articles are more important than scientific papers. 

Edited June 17, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Stargazer]

It is all about power to weight/mass ratios. It just takes a lot more power to maintain an orbit than a flyby, and weight/mass is a serious consideration for long term flight even in space. In the near future(2030's) we expect to land a man on Mars. Hope I live to see it.

 

I think what you mean is that it takes more power to enter an orbit than do a flyby. 

 

You have to slow the spacecraft down, and since it left earth's atmosphere like a bat out of hell to start with, and then did some planetary slingshot maneuvers to bump up the velocity even more, you'd have to have to burn a lot of fuel to drop the speed down to enter orbit around a small object like Pluto.  This was not do-able in a single shot, I don't think.  If they could have launched a retro package separately, and then have the two meet up before the slingshots, then it could have been done.  But joining up under robotic control?  That's another level of intensity entirely.

[Stargazer]

 

 

 

It is amazing that scientists know exactly when the Voyager is going to flyby Pluto after a 3 billion mile trip. It is sad that many here in the MDDB think that science is not credible. It is true that scientists are sometimes wrong, but the general public is wrong all the time. 

 

It is sad that many here in the MDDB don't trust the scientific community, not even when the scientific community is highly confident about something that is very important. It is sad that many here think internet blogs and partisan news articles are more important than scientific papers. 

 

 

I gather that this is another attempt by you to get the thread shut down by way of derailing it into an argument about AGW? 

[TheSkepticChristian]

I gather that this is another attempt by you to get the thread shut down by way of derailing it into an argument about AGW? 

 

I like to talk about other important topics too, I like to talk about Evolution, GMO, SETI, Nanotechnology, AGW, cosmology, and scientific progress. Cosmology and physics is related to the topic, many people here don't believe the Big Bang happened. 

Edited June 18, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Stargazer]

I like to talk about other important topics too, I like to talk about Evolution, GMO, SETI, Nanotechnology, AGW, cosmology, and scientific progress. Cosmology and physics is related to the topic, many people here don't believe the Big Bang happened. 

 

OK, it's not my job to mod the board.  I was just afraid you were going to start dragging unrelated topics into the fray and thus kill a perfectly good thread.

 

But I have to say, that you overestimate your capabilities if you think you are going to be able to convince people who don't want to be convinced.  I've been busting my head on that particular rock here for years.  You're someone I am very sure I couldn't possibly convince to consider alternative views.  You and I are very convinced about what we believe.  There are a good number of others here who are just like us.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Stargazer

[thesometimesaint]

I think what you mean is that it takes more power to enter an orbit than do a flyby. 

 

You have to slow the spacecraft down, and since it left earth's atmosphere like a bat out of hell to start with, and then did some planetary slingshot maneuvers to bump up the velocity even more, you'd have to have to burn a lot of fuel to drop the speed down to enter orbit around a small object like Pluto.  This was not do-able in a single shot, I don't think.  If they could have launched a retro package separately, and then have the two meet up before the slingshots, then it could have been done.  But joining up under robotic control?  That's another level of intensity entirely.

 

It takes more power just to get more weight/mass off our planet, than less weight/mass. Those rockets are only so big. It took 7&1/2 million pounds of thrust just to get 2 men on their way to the moon.

We need to rise to the challenge; To dare to do the hard things.

Edited June 18, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[TheSkepticChristian]

  I was just afraid you were going to start dragging unrelated topics into the fray and thus kill a perfectly good thread.

 

It is an interesting discussion, but sadly most don't want to participate 

 

.  You're someone I am very sure I couldn't possibly convince to consider alternative views.  

 

I will if you present the evidence, I am open to the possibility of being wrong. I been wrong before, I can be wrong today. 

In fact, I am a real Evolution skeptic, Big Bang skeptic, AGW skeptic because I am not 100% convinced. Science is not about absolute knowledge. All the scientific theories could be wrong. 

 

PS Most "skeptics" are not skeptical at all 

Edited June 21, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[thesometimesaint]

It is an interesting discussion, but sadly most don't want to participate 

 

 

I will if you present the evidence, I am open to the possibility of being wrong. I been wrong before, I can be wrong today. 

In fact, I am a real Evolution skeptic, Big Bang skeptic, AGW skeptic because I am not 100% convinced. Science is not about absolute knowledge. All the scientific theories could be wrong. 

 

However, most so-called skeptics are not skeptical at all 

 

We always have to allow for ourselves to be wrong. But as time goes on it takes more and more evidence to falsify any theory. IE; We're still debating the Theory of Gravity(What it really is) but I don't expect apples to suddenly start falling upwards.

[TheSkepticChristian]

We always have to allow for ourselves to be wrong. But as time goes on it takes more and more evidence to falsify any theory. IE; We're still debating the Theory of Gravity(What it really is) but I don't expect apples to suddenly start falling upwards.

 

[TheSkepticChristian]

What is SETI?  Nothing more nor less than a boondoggle.  Aside from the so-called WOW! signal, which never reoccurred, all effort and funding handed out for SETI has been a complete waste.  

 

 

but  soon the biggest ET search will begin 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/searching-et-hawking-look-extraterrestrial-life-121322284.html

[Gray]

On 6/3/2015 at 5:38 PM, mfbukowski said:

The entire question is confused.

 

We cannot even imagine what "nothing" would be in this context unless we view it as "something" defined by absence of all we know.

 

We can only define it as " no light, no world, no life, no death ...... ad infinitum"

 

In short we can only define "nothing" in terms of "something".   By even using the word "nothing" we create it into a "something", just as the fact that unicorns are "real" in the sense that they are "imaginary".  We all know what a unicorn would look like if it existed, but it does not.  So we know what a unicorn "IS" which makes it automatically "something".

 

Ultimately I am convinced that the whole concept of "nothing" is a kind of category mistake.   I have trouble with the idea of "existence" just as much.

 

That's just a very long repeat of what Nehor said above:

 

 

I am not going to lose sleep over the alleged "problem".

 

I was watching a debate between William Craig and Lawrence Krauss recently, and Craig made a very similar point. The way way we talk about nothing makes it sound like we're talking about something.

But,if nothing existed, then it would be something. Nothing then cannot exist, by definition.

To then comment on Dr. Craig's arguments for God, existence itself (whatever form that takes) is therefore necessary and not contingent. No need for the necessary God/contingent universe model espoused by many mainstream Christians. 

That makes good sense to me, and seems to fit with Mormon theology as well (existence is necessary, gods would actually be contingent, products of the universe or multiverse). 

 

Edited January 27, 2016 by Gray

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

 

I was watching a debate between William Craig and Lawrence Krauss recently, and Craig made a very similar point. The way way we talk about nothing makes it sound like we're talking about something.

But,if nothing existed, then it would be something. Nothing then cannot exist, by definition.

To then comment on Dr. Craig's arguments for God, existence itself (whatever form that takes) is therefore necessary and not contingent. No need for the necessary God/contingent universe model espoused by many mainstream Christians. 

That makes good sense to me, and seems to fit with Mormon theology as well (existence is necessary, gods would actually be contingent, products of the universe or multiverse). 

 

Agreed

But I would take it a step farther

There is no need for the distinction between "necessary" and "contingent".   Just words with no meaning

There is stuff.  Of course.  Who would question it?    The question itself presumes there are people to question.

Wittgenstein would see the whole question as semantic silliness.