Extropia DaSilva: Welcome to Thinkers!
[2010/10/05 15:35] Extropia DaSilva: Today’s topic is ‘THE END OF SCIENCE’..Please read intro carefully to see what I mean by science ‘ending’…
[2010/10/05 15:35] Extropia DaSilva: Some thinkers speculate that the era of scientific disovery could soon end. Not because we know everything, but because we are approaching the limits of what can be empirically studied. Is this true? Or will we find ways around such limits?
[2010/10/05 15:35] Rhiannon Dragoone: ty Extropia
[2010/10/05 15:36] Jenaro McCallen: 4 major pointers to this discussion which I feel is necessary to add is economy, periods of wartime and funding, scientific competition. All 4 can either help or hinder the progress of scientific breakthroughs.
[2010/10/05 15:36] Lem Skall: what is science? what about political science?
[2010/10/05 15:36] Zobeid Zuma: I reckon they’re talking about physics, Lem.
[2010/10/05 15:36] Rhiannon Dragoone: I’m reminded when i hear of the ‘End of Science,’ of Descartes who thought he could solve all problems in his lifetime, given enough assistants
[2010/10/05 15:37] Extropia DaSilva: Yes Jenaro. For instance, what if we simply could not afford an even bigger particle accelerator?
[2010/10/05 15:37] Rhiannon Dragoone: I’m *always* a little skeptical of the end of science, and agree with Asimov that it prolly means the culture is decadent instead
[2010/10/05 15:37] Elizabeth Spieler: Extropia – my personal opinion is we will be done soon
[2010/10/05 15:37] Lucca Seid: yes, science is too broad for the question itself i think, science – most definitely not, physics (excluding quantum) perhaps?
[2010/10/05 15:37] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well…. the history of science shows that everytime we are close to the so-called ‘limits’, the paradigm shifts and we can start from scratch again
[2010/10/05 15:38] Khannea Suntzu: I think yes, we are less than a century away from the end of science, assuming we keep operating with the same 1350 lardball brain. It’s over we’ll have reached the limit.
[2010/10/05 15:38] Lem Skall: we still have enough to discover in science and I think a lot is still possible, we still need better sources of energy
[2010/10/05 15:38] Rhiannon Dragoone: /me agrees with Geyneth
[2010/10/05 15:38] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Rhiannon, Asimov was right!… and so are hyou 🙂
[2010/10/05 15:38] Lem Skall: but what do we need more beyond sources of energy?
[2010/10/05 15:38] Rhiannon Dragoone: Gwyneth, now we have to convince the decadent folks here
[2010/10/05 15:38] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Khannea. what will happen in a century that didn’t happen before?
[2010/10/05 15:38] Jenaro McCallen: Money unfortunately plays a important part yet privileged part of science
[2010/10/05 15:39] Rhiannon Dragoone: Lem, its not a question of needing more, but of expanding our consciousness
[2010/10/05 15:39] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Money always played a part of science
[2010/10/05 15:39] Elizabeth Spieler: what if money ended?
[2010/10/05 15:39] Extropia DaSilva: I do not think science will end in the sense that we no longer have anything to investigate. Refining our understanding in areas where we have a correct theory of everything (such as nature and evolution) can go on indefinitely. But collective human knowledge presumably has its limits, and perhaps many aspects of reality lie outside those limits forever beyond our reach?
[2010/10/05 15:39] Gwyneth Llewelyn: we’d create more; money is virtual
[2010/10/05 15:39] Rhiannon Dragoone: Gwyneth, it did, but you have scientists doing experiments in their backyards
[2010/10/05 15:39] Gwyneth Llewelyn: oh sure!
[2010/10/05 15:40] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I’m technically a scientist too, and I definitely do experiments without funding in my backyard 😉
[2010/10/05 15:40] Vellora Vella: Hmm… we even should not get only to focused on details… we even dont know today why there is lightening in the clouds… why it happens… a.s.o.
[2010/10/05 15:40] Jenaro McCallen: thats interesting if we take away competition will there be the urge to make scientific discovery?
[2010/10/05 15:40] Lem Skall: Rhi, I think that once there will be no practical purpose to science it will definitely slow down
[2010/10/05 15:40] Zobeid Zuma: I think there’s an end, but we’re so far from it that there isn’t even a light at the end of the tunnel.
[2010/10/05 15:40] Ataraxia Azemus: It seems reasonable to me that we can’t know everything and, more realistically, just can’t investigate some parts of the universe
[2010/10/05 15:40] Rhiannon Dragoone: Lem, slow down, maybe but not end
[2010/10/05 15:40] Jenaro McCallen: *take away money
[2010/10/05 15:40] Elizabeth Spieler: Vellora I read it’s hot meeting cold
[2010/10/05 15:40] Rhiannon Dragoone: And technology creates its own market
[2010/10/05 15:40] Gwyneth Llewelyn: most of science started well before technology was its outcome… so, yes, we can have scientificdiscovery without ‘urges’ and ‘pressure’
[2010/10/05 15:40] Scarp Godenot: Anyone who is or has been involved in the Sciences knows that the more you find out the more questions you have. So I don’t think suggesting that ‘all will soon be answered’ reflects a lack of knowledge about science in general.
[2010/10/05 15:41] Elizabeth Spieler: friction causes a spark – we call this Fire : )
[2010/10/05 15:41] Ataraxia Azemus: But we also have a long history of rethinking older models and shaking down the whole foundation back to the basics
[2010/10/05 15:41] Gwyneth Llewelyn: hear hear Scarp
[2010/10/05 15:41] Gwyneth Llewelyn: and hear hear Ataraxia too 🙂
[2010/10/05 15:41] Lem Skall: but will it be possible that it will slow down so much that there could not be anything new for hundreds of years?
[2010/10/05 15:41] Alexi Flux: Ain’t it all a bit exponential?
[2010/10/05 15:41] Khannea Suntzu: I am saying we can do all we want in terms of scientific acrobatis, but we are just chimpanzee plus. There’s only so much tricks you can teach chimps. At some point you’;ve reached the limit. I think we are as close to the maximum complexity we can attain with human 1.0 society. We can’t stack this pile of shit much higher.
[2010/10/05 15:42] Alexi Flux: Jus think of the progress in 10 yrs
[2010/10/05 15:42] Jenaro McCallen: War has played a important part of accelerating science
[2010/10/05 15:42] Scarp Godenot: Or what I mean is. What basis is the question being asked?
[2010/10/05 15:42] Alexi Flux: compared wi 100 yrs
[2010/10/05 15:42] Extropia DaSilva: No Gwyn. Technology came first. Using a rock to crack open a nut is technology. It was only much later that we used such complex combinations of natural resources we needed a scientific understanding of the natural principles governing them.
[2010/10/05 15:42] Rhiannon Dragoone: Atari, exactly, just sheer randomness makes it impossible to end science
[2010/10/05 15:42] Elizabeth Spieler: what if all truly understood what they are – which caused no need to continue the “search” for more science to be known
[2010/10/05 15:42] Gwyneth Llewelyn: for instance mmmh…. I was always taught that clouds are just water vapour staying up there. It seems that this ‘common scientific assumption’ has been recently questioned, and a lot of new research is being done about what clouds exactly are. The same applies to a lot of things. For instance, what *is* electricity? What *is* fire? We can certainly do much better tha just *describe* it
[2010/10/05 15:42] Lem Skall: Alexi, what progress has there been in the last 10 years?
[2010/10/05 15:43] Zobeid Zuma: They still don’t know how lightning is generated, do they?
[2010/10/05 15:43] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Khannea…. people prettbmuch claimed the same in 1900
[2010/10/05 15:43] Gwyneth Llewelyn: look at where we are today!
[2010/10/05 15:43] Rhiannon Dragoone: And who was it who said one question leads to another; totally true in science
[2010/10/05 15:43] Vellora Vella: they dont
[2010/10/05 15:43] Gwyneth Llewelyn: exactly, Zo
[2010/10/05 15:43] Extropia DaSilva: But Rhi look at cosmology. Which seems to be a growing tower of ad-hoc retrodictions positing exotic energies and matter and dimensions that are increasingly beyond any conceivable method of experimental falsification. So is cosmology still science?
[2010/10/05 15:44] Lucca Seid: /me giggles ~ i have this vague impression that science at the moment is like an mmo waiting for its next expansion to come out, everyone has the best items, only refining, yet the rules may change soon
[2010/10/05 15:44] Scarp Godenot: Religious people proclaim that all knowledge is in their texts and has been forever. The proclaim the end of science before it starts…. ha ha
[2010/10/05 15:44] Jenaro McCallen: A good thing to look @ lem is carbon nanotube technology thats only taken off at the beginning of the 2000s
[2010/10/05 15:44] Gwyneth Llewelyn: so… theonly reason for science not advancing more with Human 1.0 is if we stopped asking questions. Meaning: if we continue to watch TV instead of exercising our brains 🙂
[2010/10/05 15:44] Khannea Suntzu: I know Gwyn, and I’d love if if they proved me wrong 🙂
[2010/10/05 15:44] Khannea Suntzu: /me takes her evening seroquel
[2010/10/05 15:44] Gwyneth Llewelyn: heh
[2010/10/05 15:44] Rhiannon Dragoone: Extropia, well we can say science will end, if it is replaced by some other discipline, sure; but the systematic search for knowledge will not stop any time soon
[2010/10/05 15:45] Lem Skall: Jenaro, is that science or technology?
[2010/10/05 15:45] Scarp Godenot: the only thing that will stop ‘science’ is repression. This has always been the case throughout history.
[2010/10/05 15:45] Gwyneth Llewelyn: true.
[2010/10/05 15:45] Rhiannon Dragoone: /me agrees with Scarp
[2010/10/05 15:45] Gwyneth Llewelyn: repression through TV 😉
[2010/10/05 15:46] Ataraxia Azemus: Well, but. We all know that humans will always want to know what anything IS, but there may be limits to what we can even investigate.
[2010/10/05 15:46] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I fail to understand the argument that there is a ‘limit’ to human knowledge.
[2010/10/05 15:46] Gwyneth Llewelyn: “there may be”…. well, that’s speculation
[2010/10/05 15:46] Archmage Atlantis: Dangerous to say in public, but some TV does expand knowledge and questioning
[2010/10/05 15:46] Gwyneth Llewelyn: what *facts* indicate that human knowledge has limits?
[2010/10/05 15:46] Elizabeth Spieler: all the forefathers predicted it’s end, it will come to pass as every thing is created in thought processes
[2010/10/05 15:46] Extropia DaSilva: Ok well..at what point does investigating a certain aspect of reality become something science cannot answer? Origins for example: why does everything exist at all? Can science provide all the answers?
[2010/10/05 15:46] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Archmage: you infidel! you shall burn in Hell!
[2010/10/05 15:46] Ataraxia Azemus: I can’t look directly at the past :p
[2010/10/05 15:47] Vellora Vella: also a problem of science is the fact….. are we ready to use the new technology wisly enough ?
[2010/10/05 15:47] Gwyneth Llewelyn: No, Extie, but it can provide all the questions :)))))
[2010/10/05 15:47] Jenaro McCallen: I would say lem that it can be included within science as it would benefit many other fields
[2010/10/05 15:47] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Vellora, most often, we aren’t )
[2010/10/05 15:47] Lem Skall: Jenaro, technology benefits science but is not science
[2010/10/05 15:47] Rhiannon Dragoone: Extropia, yes, there is a dovetailing of science and philosophy and origin questions can turn to be theological, but they can also be cosmological
[2010/10/05 15:48] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Extie, there are a lot of dead-ends
[2010/10/05 15:48] Rhiannon Dragoone: And we cand develop technologies to help solve them.
[2010/10/05 15:48] Scarp Godenot: I think one can make a case that there is no limit to knowledge. Because everything that is, is a small part of the relationships among everything that is.
[2010/10/05 15:48] Rhiannon Dragoone: Look at the interferometer, for instance
[2010/10/05 15:48] Lucca Seid: well i would say the two fields of science closest to blurring the line between science and philosophy are quantum physics and neuroscience
[2010/10/05 15:48] Jenaro McCallen: So what would be your definition of science then lem?
[2010/10/05 15:48] Gwyneth Llewelyn: things that science thought they could answer, but they just got more and more questions… after a few decades, someone aks the ‘just right’ question and happens to advance that specific field a bit more…
[2010/10/05 15:48] Archmage Atlantis: The corollary to that, Vellora, is we don’t know what “wise use” is till we experiment
[2010/10/05 15:48] Elizabeth Spieler: humanity will discover the fostering of it is the most important
[2010/10/05 15:48] Extropia DaSilva: Yes, but the forefathers prredicted the end because they thought they had the basic outline covered (even though Relativity and Quantum Physics was not yet discovered) But we are wondering if science will end because, for example, uniting quantum physics with general relativity is simply beyond our capabilities.
[2010/10/05 15:48] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Scarp, I agree 🙂
[2010/10/05 15:48] Lem Skall: I don’t have a clear definition
[2010/10/05 15:48] Vellora Vella: just remembering a docomentation on tv… asking people if they could teleport….. then they some said… “Great… i can rob a bank”…. or “Great… i can get into the room of my lover”… etc
[2010/10/05 15:49] Ataraxia Azemus: Science can never really answer why questions of any kind. What and how work well.
[2010/10/05 15:49] Gwyneth Llewelyn: so what, Extie? There can be a new paradigm shift which makes that unification obsolete
[2010/10/05 15:49] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Holographic-entropic universes, for instace.
[2010/10/05 15:49] Gwyneth Llewelyn: 🙂
[2010/10/05 15:49] Ataraxia Azemus: But why is just asking for infinite regression :p
[2010/10/05 15:49] Extropia DaSilva: No way does that make it obsolete. But yes I suppose that is possible.
[2010/10/05 15:49] Ataraxia Azemus: Every six year old knows this all too well
[2010/10/05 15:50] Gwyneth Llewelyn: true, Ataraxia!
[2010/10/05 15:50] Vellora Vella: higher science needs a higher responsibility… i think
[2010/10/05 15:50] Elizabeth Spieler: the laws of physica will never change nor can they be changed by thought processes to teleport due to matter being all seeing, test it yourself, try to walk through a wall, it blocks you
[2010/10/05 15:50] Gwyneth Llewelyn: /me resists asking “why?”
[2010/10/05 15:50] Ataraxia Azemus: Hehehe
[2010/10/05 15:50] Extropia DaSilva: why?
[2010/10/05 15:50] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Extie is bolder.
[2010/10/05 15:50] Lucca Seid: “why” implies purpose, that is the realm of philosophy and religion
[2010/10/05 15:50] Gwyneth Llewelyn: /me *nods*
[2010/10/05 15:50] Rhiannon Dragoone: Extropia, if ur talking about the Founding Fathers of the US, they thought there would be unlimited growth in knowledge; things would just get better and better
[2010/10/05 15:50] Elizabeth Spieler: learning what you truly are ceases all seeking of what you are not
[2010/10/05 15:50] Archmage Atlantis: Searching for a unified theory of everything is simply a revised attempt at explaning the infinite, previous know as God
[2010/10/05 15:51] Archmage Atlantis: Or Prince, I forget
[2010/10/05 15:51] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Rhiannon, I also believe we live in the best of possible worlds and that it can only get better 🙂
[2010/10/05 15:51] Extropia DaSilva: Yes but it is possible that you could walk through a wall. It is just very improbable:)
[2010/10/05 15:51] Scarp Godenot: Well I don’t think that science can’t answer ‘why’ questions except in the limited sense that religions use why? And there answer is always the same: god.
[2010/10/05 15:51] Scarp Godenot: their
[2010/10/05 15:51] Gwyneth Llewelyn: except on religions who don’t have gods, Scarp 😛
[2010/10/05 15:51] Gwyneth Llewelyn: *which
[2010/10/05 15:51] Extropia DaSilva: Are there any?
[2010/10/05 15:51] Elizabeth Spieler: Rhiannon – there is evidence in print this moment that proves the thoughts of the men in 1600 created what is known as the USA today – down to the property lines
[2010/10/05 15:51] Rhiannon Dragoone: Well, there are clearly limits to science; can’t answer ‘why’ or ‘what should we do?’ etc., but to say its limited doesn’t mean it will end in its questioning
[2010/10/05 15:52] Gwyneth Llewelyn: sure there are!
[2010/10/05 15:52] Extropia DaSilva: Like?
[2010/10/05 15:52] Ataraxia Azemus: Buddhism, Hinduism…yeah.
[2010/10/05 15:52] Elizabeth Spieler: Manifest Destiny . . smiles
[2010/10/05 15:52] Extropia DaSilva: BUddhism has a god. Buddha.
[2010/10/05 15:52] Gwyneth Llewelyn: No
[2010/10/05 15:52] Scarp Godenot: Stating that science can’t answer the question ‘why’ is not true.
[2010/10/05 15:52] Ataraxia Azemus: Judaism sometimes but I’m not even gonna look at that can of worms.
[2010/10/05 15:52] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Buddha is no ‘god’ lol… just a perfectly harmless human being who died 2500 years ago 😉
[2010/10/05 15:52] Vellora Vella: religion is only the helper for getting mankind next step in evolution…..
[2010/10/05 15:52] Archmage Atlantis: Actually, Extie, I think Buddha might disagree
[2010/10/05 15:52] Extropia DaSilva: does. I have seen effigies of him. Happy looking bloke, very well-fed.
[2010/10/05 15:52] Ataraxia Azemus: Buddha was just a man. A clever man but.
[2010/10/05 15:53] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Right, just another guy with some clever ideas.
[2010/10/05 15:53] Extropia DaSilva: 🙂
[2010/10/05 15:53] Elizabeth Spieler: Buddha is not a god and his opinion was only men should learn as they were the ones unaware of what they are
[2010/10/05 15:53] Rhiannon Dragoone: hi Sonitus!
[2010/10/05 15:53] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I have also seen effigies of Einstein, and I’m sure that Einstein wasnt’a a God 😛
[2010/10/05 15:53] Lucca Seid: buddha is a title 🙂
[2010/10/05 15:53] Sonitus Randt: Hey Rhia!
[2010/10/05 15:53] Gwyneth Llewelyn: or a state of mind, Lucca 😉
[2010/10/05 15:53] Ataraxia Azemus: Hi Sonitus 🙂
[2010/10/05 15:53] Lucca Seid: yes
[2010/10/05 15:53] Vellora Vella: i never was in America… does it exist ?
[2010/10/05 15:54] Extropia DaSilva: Is Buddhism a religion or a philosophical way of life?
[2010/10/05 15:54] Archmage Atlantis: true Lucca, Siddharta (sp) was the man
[2010/10/05 15:54] Gwyneth Llewelyn: That’s something even buddhists don’t know, and, to be honest, don’t care 😉
[2010/10/05 15:54] Sonitus Randt: Hi Ataraxia
[2010/10/05 15:54] Ataraxia Azemus: Uh oh….Vellora’s onto us
[2010/10/05 15:54] Rhiannon Dragoone: hi Seren!
[2010/10/05 15:54] Elizabeth Spieler: Extropia Buddha was a mortal man trying to teach aggressive males to be more passive
[2010/10/05 15:54] Vellora Vella: lol
[2010/10/05 15:54] Extropia DaSilva: Hello Darling:)
[2010/10/05 15:54] Serendipity Seraph: hey all. rezzing
[2010/10/05 15:54] Gwyneth Llewelyn: he taught women too, Elizabeth 😉 which was shocking at that time.
[2010/10/05 15:54] Extropia DaSilva: Well…who taught Buddha…?
[2010/10/05 15:54] Rhiannon Dragoone: Extropia, how come you didn’t greet me with ‘hello, darling.’
[2010/10/05 15:55] Extropia DaSilva: Because I am not married to you.
[2010/10/05 15:55] Elizabeth Spieler: Gwyneth – the history of what I say is well published . . smiles
[2010/10/05 15:55] Rhiannon Dragoone: Jesus’ ministry was to women and children, not just men; freaked the men out
[2010/10/05 15:55] Ataraxia Azemus: A tree and a sick guy.
[2010/10/05 15:55] Rhiannon Dragoone: heh
[2010/10/05 15:55] Gwyneth Llewelyn: indeed, Rhiannon
[2010/10/05 15:55] Serendipity Seraph: hey love!
[2010/10/05 15:55] Scarp Godenot: Buddhism is a religion in all ways that one defines religion. Just look at the various sects and their rituals for example. Having an amorphous school of thought doesn’t exempt the practitioners from getting very specific.
[2010/10/05 15:55] Extropia DaSilva: *Cuddles up*
[2010/10/05 15:55] Rhiannon Dragoone: He laughed and said, ‘well, what are you going to do about it?’
[2010/10/05 15:55] Elizabeth Spieler: Rhiannon that depends which stage you define as WOMEN
[2010/10/05 15:55] Extropia DaSilva: Seren, sweety we are discussing…
[2010/10/05 15:55] Khannea Suntzu: /me softly kisses serendipity
[2010/10/05 15:55] Extropia DaSilva: Some thinkers speculate that the era of scientific disovery could soon end. Not because we know everything, but because we are approaching the limits of what can be empirically studied. Is this true? Or will we find ways around such limits?
[2010/10/05 15:56] Elizabeth Spieler: every human brain is caused from a “WOMAN”
[2010/10/05 15:56] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, technically, “Buddhism” is a Western label from religion students which apply to a certain set of ideas 😉
[2010/10/05 15:56] Extropia DaSilva: True. All mammals are inherently female.
[2010/10/05 15:56] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Buddhists would laugh at the idea of calling their religion “Buddhism”
[2010/10/05 15:56] Gwyneth Llewelyn: All mammals have been caused by female mammals;)
[2010/10/05 15:57] Elizabeth Spieler: metaphor of man and woman is the human brain according to my newly published book, The Origin of the Wonderful Wizard of Oz – http://www.eyeonoz.org
[2010/10/05 15:57] Lem Skall: yet we all have nipples
[2010/10/05 15:57] Scarp Godenot: I would also like to remind people that Science isn’t only deductively empirical. It is also explanatory. And Inductive reasoning is part of it as well.
[2010/10/05 15:57] Zobeid Zuma: What do they call it then?
[2010/10/05 15:57] Vellora Vella: would you agree saying … each step of developening technology has a bad and a good side ?
[2010/10/05 15:57] Extropia DaSilva: Well, the embryo is female but sometimes the right signals occur at the right stage in embryonic development to turn it into a male.
[2010/10/05 15:57] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Dharma, which has multiple meanings, but could be summarised as “teachings” or “method”
[2010/10/05 15:58] Elizabeth Spieler: It means when the right side (male ) sees the left side (female) brain – Knowing thy true self
[2010/10/05 15:58] Extropia DaSilva: Yes Vellora, absolutely. Technololgy is a double-edged sword.
[2010/10/05 15:58] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Vellora, what is good or bad depends on what people think about it 🙂 Science is not inherently good/bad.
[2010/10/05 15:58] Archmage Atlantis: An some embryos are XXY
[2010/10/05 15:58] Extropia DaSilva: Yes there are more than two sexes.
[2010/10/05 15:58] Jenaro McCallen: But technology is the building block for science without it how can you progress science
[2010/10/05 15:59] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hmm!
[2010/10/05 15:59] Ataraxia Azemus: I’d say it depends on what people do with it
[2010/10/05 15:59] Scarp Godenot: Vellora I would sy that the value judgements of good and bad are added later depending on what is done with the science.
[2010/10/05 15:59] Vellora Vella: hmm
[2010/10/05 15:59] Ataraxia Azemus: Rightio
[2010/10/05 15:59] Gwyneth Llewelyn: if by “technology” you mean “using a tool”, you’d be right about most science, although many of the most famous scientific advances were thought experiments
[2010/10/05 15:59] Lucca Seid: i would say, buddhism, as a label, is a religion because it uses different techniques / thought devices to achieve changes in the way your perception works, rather than being pure empirical analisis
[2010/10/05 15:59] Khannea Suntzu: Hoi peer, my sweetness
[2010/10/05 16:00] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I totally agree with Scarp; and these value judgements depend on time, space, people, conditions, enviornment… they’re not intrinsic attributes
[2010/10/05 16:00] Extropia DaSilva: Yes it is a symbiotic relarionship. Technology can be used to refine our scientific understanding, and refined understanding can lead to better technologies. And so it accumulates.
[2010/10/05 16:00] Lucca Seid: but the deeper you sink into it, the deeper the deconstruction, until you undo any labels, methods and so on, then it is a state of mind
[2010/10/05 16:00] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Lucca, yes and no. Yes in the sense that it has methodologies, techniques, etc. No because you can devise your own.
[2010/10/05 16:01] Lucca Seid: that is why i said, buddhism “as a label”
[2010/10/05 16:01] Ataraxia Azemus: Buddhism isn’t really much of an outlier within world religion. Every major religion has some tradition with a similar approach. Buddhism just got clever enough to emphasize its practice over its mythologies.
[2010/10/05 16:01] Gwyneth Llewelyn: and those would be using pure empirical analysis 🙂
[2010/10/05 16:01] Serendipity Seraph: phone call. back
[2010/10/05 16:01] Peer Infinity: hi everyone 🙂
[2010/10/05 16:01] Serendipity Seraph: what does male vs fermale; left vs right brain have to do with the question really?
[2010/10/05 16:01] Zobeid Zuma: Hi Peer!
[2010/10/05 16:01] Elizabeth Spieler: good day peoples : )
[2010/10/05 16:01] Vellora Vella: for me personally religion is an excuse for the mistakes of mankind for its non-perfection
[2010/10/05 16:01] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Buddhism without practice doesn’t make any sense… it would be saying that you can do science without thinking 😛
[2010/10/05 16:01] Scarp Godenot: What is science? I would summarize it as being a process in which, using logical tool, we attempt answers to questions that are not contradicted by those same logical tools.
[2010/10/05 16:01] Extropia DaSilva: OK. If the limit is the human brain, and we develop a scientific understanding of the brain plus technologies that can build better brains…is that a way of keeping scientific progress growing and growing indefinitely?
[2010/10/05 16:01] Serendipity Seraph: the question is about the limits of what can be known, right?
[2010/10/05 16:01] Gwyneth Llewelyn: oh nice one, Vellora!
[2010/10/05 16:02] Gwyneth Llewelyn: in a sense, Seren — and if there are any limits agt all
[2010/10/05 16:02] Ataraxia Azemus: Nothing grows indefinitely except for the blob
[2010/10/05 16:02] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I would disagree with the “limits”
[2010/10/05 16:02] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well
[2010/10/05 16:02] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Take our own minds, for example. is there a limit to what we can acquire in terms of knowledge?
[2010/10/05 16:02] Serendipity Seraph: universe as far as we know expands indefiinitely at this point
[2010/10/05 16:02] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Is memory limited?
[2010/10/05 16:02] Extropia DaSilva: The Blob does not grow indefinitely. It would run out of food like anything else.
[2010/10/05 16:02] Gwyneth Llewelyn: and yes, how do we measure it?
[2010/10/05 16:02] Extropia DaSilva: Using light.
[2010/10/05 16:02] Rhiannon Dragoone: Atara, but the limits of the universe may be the limits of science, and that’s good enough for it to go on way after humans are exttinct
[2010/10/05 16:03] Ataraxia Azemus: Shhhh! It doesn’t know that!
[2010/10/05 16:03] Serendipity Seraph: we are finite and there are bounds on what we can learn with this finite architecture
[2010/10/05 16:03] Scarp Godenot: I wonder if the blob has excrement?
[2010/10/05 16:03] Gwyneth Llewelyn: /me shines a torc h at her memory, “Hmm. No. I don’t see any limits”
[2010/10/05 16:03] Rhiannon Dragoone: Extropia, i was just going to say, even if our brains are finite, we can improve them
[2010/10/05 16:03] Serendipity Seraph: memory is limited if you have any precise model of how it is done in the mind. or is it?
[2010/10/05 16:03] Gwyneth Llewelyn: The brains are finite; but the mind behaves as if it isn’t 😉
[2010/10/05 16:03] Rhiannon Dragoone: And by ‘finite,’ we can still have such a vast understanding, that it would be, for all practical purposes, unlimited
[2010/10/05 16:03] Lucca Seid: in order to measure things like stored information in the brain first projects like the conectome map must be completed (a map of all of the brain’s neural connections)
[2010/10/05 16:04] Gwyneth Llewelyn: It’s a good question, Seren.
[2010/10/05 16:04] Extropia DaSilva: Your memory is limited, Gwyn.
[2010/10/05 16:04] Lucca Seid: it is theoretically possible but we are not quite there yet
[2010/10/05 16:04] Serendipity Seraph: friend has a FFT model of memory so very fuzzy
[2010/10/05 16:04] Gwyneth Llewelyn: See, that area, for instance, has lots of questions to be answered… we have hardly started to formulate the questions.
[2010/10/05 16:04] Khannea Suntzu: Finally we are now discussing the limit of the human brain.
[2010/10/05 16:04] Gwyneth Llewelyn: How do you know that, Extie?
[2010/10/05 16:05] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I mean… if you mean that when I’ll die, my memories will be lost, gthen, yes, my memories are limited in time.
[2010/10/05 16:05] Archmage Atlantis: Agree that I am finite, but that whatever follows in evolution will hopefully transcind my limits, though it will have it’s own, only more extensive
[2010/10/05 16:05] Serendipity Seraph: if neuron connection model of memory then for sure it is limited by number of neurons and possible connections
[2010/10/05 16:05] Extropia DaSilva: Because you have a finite number of neurons, synapses, dendrites, axons, neurotransmitters.
[2010/10/05 16:05] Gwyneth Llewelyn: But until my death, I have no reason and no way to measure if I have exhausted my brain’s ability to remember things.
[2010/10/05 16:05] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes well
[2010/10/05 16:05] Gwyneth Llewelyn: But the point is that in my lifetime I’m unable to exhaust all of those.
[2010/10/05 16:06] Extropia DaSilva: Gwyn, I may never fill my terabyte hard drive. But that does not mean it has infinite storage.
[2010/10/05 16:06] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I didn’t said I had infinite memory 🙂
[2010/10/05 16:06] Serendipity Seraph: sure. was the 2nd part wthere there is a limited number of things that any mind whatsoever can know?
[2010/10/05 16:06] Ataraxia Azemus: If you’re the only one who can use it and it goes kaput when you do, then it practically does
[2010/10/05 16:06] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Just unlimited memory, except for my lifetime, which limits it.
[2010/10/05 16:06] Rhiannon Dragoone: Geyneth, oh, good, cuz i though i had forgotten that you did
[2010/10/05 16:06] Serendipity Seraph: or the amount that there is to know which is not the same thing?
[2010/10/05 16:06] Gwyneth Llewelyn: hehe Rhiannon
[2010/10/05 16:07] Rhiannon Dragoone: Well, for memory to limit science, we have to be talking collective memory; and there’s no reason to think that collective memory is finite at all
[2010/10/05 16:07] Lem Skall: can we design AI that will create science and come up let’s say with the UT?
[2010/10/05 16:07] Extropia DaSilva: Yes, could there be things beyond any mind, regardless of how powerful it is (excluding ‘God’)?
[2010/10/05 16:07] Jenaro McCallen: this is alittle offtopic but extropia the subconscious constantly stores anything which a human being sees touches or feels its our active conscious which does not remember
[2010/10/05 16:07] Ataraxia Azemus: I think there may be, in the sense that we can only hold so much practical information at a time
[2010/10/05 16:07] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, when you formulate things that way, Rhiannon, it *seems* to be a limit somewhere. But the reverse argument is: is there a limit to the questions we can formulate?
[2010/10/05 16:07] Serendipity Seraph: of course it is. just a bigger exponent
[2010/10/05 16:08] Extropia DaSilva: Yes Jenaro. The brain knows a lot that the conscious mind is unaware of.
[2010/10/05 16:08] Serendipity Seraph: we don’t know that jenaro
[2010/10/05 16:08] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ataraxia: yes, well, at a time… 90-120 years 🙂
[2010/10/05 16:08] Extropia DaSilva: Yes, we do know that, Seren.
[2010/10/05 16:08] Serendipity Seraph: evidence is we invent a lot of what we “remember”
[2010/10/05 16:08] Rhiannon Dragoone: Well, i’m not against there being a limit, somewhere, Gwyneth; i jus thin we’ll never see it
[2010/10/05 16:08] Lucca Seid: i believe there was a case of a woman with a condition that allowed her to remember every moment in her life, filterless
[2010/10/05 16:08] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Right!
[2010/10/05 16:08] Ataraxia Azemus: I prefer to remember things my way :p
[2010/10/05 16:08] Lucca Seid: unless it was proven fake
[2010/10/05 16:08] Serendipity Seraph: no we don’t.
[2010/10/05 16:08] Rhiannon Dragoone: Our imagination is greater than our knowlege, and we will expand our knowledge to our imagination
[2010/10/05 16:09] Ataraxia Azemus: Funesa, the memorious!
[2010/10/05 16:09] Khannea Suntzu: Sort of like a drake formula of maximum progressible science
[2010/10/05 16:09] Gwyneth Llewelyn: oh nice one, Rhiannon!
[2010/10/05 16:09] Lem Skall: I asked a question that went unnoticed: what about future AI that will create new scientific theories?
[2010/10/05 16:09] Rhiannon Dragoone: /me winks at Gwyneth
[2010/10/05 16:09] Serendipity Seraph: it is proven false. we do not have photographic subsconscious memory
[2010/10/05 16:09] Vellora Vella: strange technology i think…. the egypts made info in their stones….. and we today never ever make data safe for even 100 years… using high-technology……
[2010/10/05 16:09] Vellora Vella: you know ?
[2010/10/05 16:09] Extropia DaSilva: Yes we do, Go and read ‘Making Up The Mind’ for many examples proving this fact time and time again.
[2010/10/05 16:09] Jenaro McCallen: its the criticial factor the barrier between both conscious and subconscious mind which determines what goes back and forth
[2010/10/05 16:09] Serendipity Seraph: or at least we have found no dependable access if we do
[2010/10/05 16:09] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Good point, it’s not only ‘questions’, ‘knowledge’, and ‘memory’. It’s also imagination. Is there a limit to that?
[2010/10/05 16:09] Khannea Suntzu: individual brain x education x cognitive tools x communication x population (etc)
[2010/10/05 16:09] Scarp Godenot: A good argument for there being no end to Science is that the universe as well as a small part of it, our biosphere. is in a constant state of change. New things to know are created constantly.
[2010/10/05 16:09] Archmage Atlantis: We know the unconcious mind “remembers” more detail than the concious mind can easily access…….the statement that the unconcious remembers “everything” remains open to proof
[2010/10/05 16:09] Ataraxia Azemus: Vellora, that’s a fun (or scary, depending on how you look at things) thing to think about
[2010/10/05 16:10] Extropia DaSilva: Yes Vellora. The more modern a storage medium is,, the shorter its lifespan.
[2010/10/05 16:10] Serendipity Seraph: but those are just variations within a domain. not really new things
[2010/10/05 16:10] Gwyneth Llewelyn: good point too, Scarp. If we just had a snapshot of the universe to work with, then, yes, there might be a limit. But the universe is constantly changing….
[2010/10/05 16:10] Ataraxia Azemus: We store so much of our culture and knowledge on technological artifacts that need other specialized technological artiacts to replay, none of which are built to last longer than our own lifetimes…
[2010/10/05 16:10] Gwyneth Llewelyn: haha yes, Ataraxia1
[2010/10/05 16:10] Ataraxia Azemus: We’ll be a fun dark age some day.
[2010/10/05 16:10] Rhiannon Dragoone: Atari, but there’s an alternative to that; its called books
[2010/10/05 16:10] Vellora Vella: storing some datas…. in 100 years ago….. no one could read it again…
[2010/10/05 16:10] Serendipity Seraph: long now project is attempt to make that better
[2010/10/05 16:10] Vellora Vella: egypts win.. lol
[2010/10/05 16:11] Extropia DaSilva: If we are near the end, how would we know? How would we know that nobody, perhaps tomorrow, would make some breakthrough?
[2010/10/05 16:11] Ataraxia Azemus: Even our books are very poorly made, and decay pretty quickly
[2010/10/05 16:11] Serendipity Seraph: but it strikes me that after apocalypse very little of a computer age culture would survive
[2010/10/05 16:11] Serendipity Seraph: artifacts would tell so little
[2010/10/05 16:11] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I think that question is impossible to answer, Extropia.
[2010/10/05 16:11] Archmage Atlantis: Unless someone alive now plans for that Seren
[2010/10/05 16:11] Serendipity Seraph: we are nowhere near the end
[2010/10/05 16:11] Extropia DaSilva: Yes, except that every second our computers communicate more information than the Egyptians created in their whole existence. Probably.
[2010/10/05 16:12] Rhiannon Dragoone: Well, atari, the fact that we might plunge into a dark ages would only be a set back; wouldn’t mean the end of science
[2010/10/05 16:12] Scarp Godenot: Yes, ataraxia, that is the problem of our age. the more complex the information storage, the more complex the reader needed. Some have said that we are living right now in an age that not much will be known about from the point of view of a distant future.
[2010/10/05 16:12] Gwyneth Llewelyn: True 🙂
[2010/10/05 16:12] Rhiannon Dragoone: In fact, it might mean the rebirth of it
[2010/10/05 16:12] Ataraxia Azemus: We’d always wonder about our wondering…
[2010/10/05 16:12] Serendipity Seraph: we barely know the base physics and other sciences of our little planet
[2010/10/05 16:12] Gwyneth Llewelyn: /me starts printing things
[2010/10/05 16:12] Serendipity Seraph: we certainly don’t know how we ourselves work
[2010/10/05 16:12] Ataraxia Azemus: Rhia, I mean we’re living in a dark age NOW, from the future’s point of view 🙂
[2010/10/05 16:12] Rhiannon Dragoone: Seren, exactly; and until we do, its ludicrous to talk of science ending
[2010/10/05 16:12] Rhiannon Dragoone: atari, oh. Yeah, i’ve written stories where the future thinks of us as medieval
[2010/10/05 16:13] Gwyneth Llewelyn: and when we do, we’ll start asking if we have the right answers after all 🙂
[2010/10/05 16:13] Rhiannon Dragoone: I got the idea from this time travller named Gurkin
[2010/10/05 16:13] Scarp Godenot: I can speak for the science I know best: Geology. We know very little about the interior of the earth and its processes. We know very little of the history of the earth. Thos we know SOME of both.
[2010/10/05 16:13] Rhiannon Dragoone: At least that’s what he said his name was
[2010/10/05 16:13] Serendipity Seraph: post urls to those, rhi. please!
[2010/10/05 16:14] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I think it’s the same with +all* science
[2010/10/05 16:14] Extropia DaSilva: Hmm..I think the search for a theory of everything is like identifying all pieces on a chessboard and how they are allowed to move. OK, but you still have a longggg way to go before you can cal yourself ‘grandmaster’.
[2010/10/05 16:14] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Never as before, we are way more humble about what we actually know.
[2010/10/05 16:14] Khannea Suntzu: Oh and a service announcement. It apparently IS possible, and occasionally does happen, that someone in the same sim as yours can back up his/her avatar – and the entire sim, and the ENTIRE inventories of all characters inside the sim. And yes this is still possible anno 2010 even though LL claims it is not possible.
[2010/10/05 16:14] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Which is ironic (but honest!)
[2010/10/05 16:14] Rhiannon Dragoone: wll, i’ll post an url to the place where i’ve workshopped them, but don’t want to give out my real name; i’m called ‘rhiannon’ at the workshop
[2010/10/05 16:14] Rhiannon Dragoone: http://www.thenextbigwriter.com
[2010/10/05 16:14] Serendipity Seraph: the TOE is not really about everything. just a full theory of physical forces. Not the same as everything at all
[2010/10/05 16:15] Extropia DaSilva: Uhuh.
[2010/10/05 16:15] Serendipity Seraph: not even for a staunch determinist
[2010/10/05 16:15] Rhiannon Dragoone: Seern, yeah, its really the Unified Field Theory than Einstein was working on
[2010/10/05 16:15] Lucca Seid: ok, how about : science with our current toolset is coming to a near stop, but that does not imply that newer tools for empirical study are being developed constantly
[2010/10/05 16:15] Scarp Godenot: It is a truism that needs to be restated over and over: the more one knows, the more one realizes how little they know.
[2010/10/05 16:15] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Good one, Lucca!
[2010/10/05 16:15] Rhiannon Dragoone: /me agrees with Scarp
[2010/10/05 16:15] Ataraxia Azemus: Lovecraft’s Law?
[2010/10/05 16:15] Rhiannon Dragoone: Well, Lucca, maybe, I’m not even convinced of that, but i could be persuaded to change my mind
[2010/10/05 16:15] Serendipity Seraph: interesting lucca but I don’t think that is true either as the toolset includes better and better computational tools
[2010/10/05 16:16] Vellora Vella: also the thing of science i worry is the fact…. sure it is important to know where we are from…. and exploring… but why there is no science about the “now” and the “way we should got together”…
[2010/10/05 16:16] Gwyneth Llewelyn: No, Socrates
[2010/10/05 16:16] Serendipity Seraph: because that is not in domain of science
[2010/10/05 16:16] Peer Infinity: noone knows what science doesn’t know: http://lesswrong.com/lw/kj/no_one_knows_what_science_doesnt_know/
[2010/10/05 16:16] Serendipity Seraph: science isn’t only means of knowing
[2010/10/05 16:17] Serendipity Seraph: did we discuss epistemology yet? 🙂
[2010/10/05 16:17] Ataraxia Azemus: /me suddenly wonders about Socrates’ daemon…
[2010/10/05 16:17] Peer Infinity: oops, that’s kinda off-topic, never mind
[2010/10/05 16:17] Rhiannon Dragoone: Seren, right, faith and deeper realms of the mind can be noetic
[2010/10/05 16:17] Gwyneth Llewelyn: not yet, but we can, Seren 🙂
[2010/10/05 16:17] Extropia DaSilva: Does science pushed to its limits become those other means of knowing?
[2010/10/05 16:17] Serendipity Seraph: wasn’t talking about faith
[2010/10/05 16:17] Ataraxia Azemus: No. Qualitative knowledge is just different.
[2010/10/05 16:17] Rhiannon Dragoone: Extropia, it depends on what you mean by pushing to the limits
[2010/10/05 16:17] Vellora Vella: also a good question…. do we use science…. or does science uses us ?
[2010/10/05 16:18] Rhiannon Dragoone: There are boundaries built into the definition of science and yes, in some sense science can become non scientific ways of knowing
[2010/10/05 16:18] Vellora Vella: which way do we go `?
[2010/10/05 16:18] Khannea Suntzu: /me muters totalky incoherejht;yu and fuill of spelling etrrors and loigs
[2010/10/05 16:18] Rhiannon Dragoone: Extropia, ur cosmology example is a good one
[2010/10/05 16:18] Serendipity Seraph: depends on def of science. it is a very particular set of methodologies that already depends on some epistemelogical and metaphysical assumptions
[2010/10/05 16:18] Extropia DaSilva: Well..cosmology for one. Does it start to look more and more like theology as we look further back towards the origin of everything?
[2010/10/05 16:18] Gwyneth Llewelyn: extie, perhaps not — but from a viewpoint 3,000 years in the future, won’t our cosmology today be impossible to distinguish from mythology? 🙂
[2010/10/05 16:18] Serendipity Seraph: it expands what we can know with more or less quantifiable levels of certainty
[2010/10/05 16:19] Scarp Godenot: Extie, not it looks less and less like theology
[2010/10/05 16:19] Scarp Godenot: no
[2010/10/05 16:19] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hmm
[2010/10/05 16:19] Ataraxia Azemus: Even the basic facts of our everyday lives might look like myths by then 🙂
[2010/10/05 16:19] Serendipity Seraph: no. science is not arbitrary
[2010/10/05 16:19] Gwyneth Llewelyn: did the Anthropic Principle become obsolete and I missed it? 🙂
[2010/10/05 16:19] Serendipity Seraph: which level of AP, gwyn?
[2010/10/05 16:20] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I’d be happy with the Weak one.
[2010/10/05 16:20] Scarp Godenot: theology is known only for simplistic answers and saying one can’t know or to ‘trust authority’ to think for you.
[2010/10/05 16:20] Serendipity Seraph: we are here. it took a lot for us to be here. we are here so obviously the universe was so arranged for us to be here to notice and comment on it. 🙂
[2010/10/05 16:20] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I certainly know a few college professors who are just like that, Scarp… 😉
[2010/10/05 16:21] Ataraxia Azemus: (Where’s the suggestions box in this thing?)
[2010/10/05 16:21] Gwyneth Llewelyn: granted, they come from the soft sciences hehe
[2010/10/05 16:21] Archmage Atlantis: Very Hawking of you Seren
[2010/10/05 16:21] Extropia DaSilva: Mainstream cosmology sees the universe as having an origin in a kind of Platonic ideal perfectly symmetrical universe, and what we see is a decayed version of it with symmetry breaking down toward noise. So..I think that is kind of theological Fall from edenist perfection?
[2010/10/05 16:21] Serendipity Seraph: what? I don’t think so, extie
[2010/10/05 16:21] Gwyneth Llewelyn: aha nice one, Extie 🙂
[2010/10/05 16:21] Serendipity Seraph: what symmetry?
[2010/10/05 16:21] Lucca Seid: or perhaps we are here because we are the natural outcome of our specific chain of initial conditions, in other words -nothing else- can be “here” but us
[2010/10/05 16:22] Serendipity Seraph: was asymmetrical from very very early
[2010/10/05 16:22] Gwyneth Llewelyn: /me is just smiling
[2010/10/05 16:22] Lucca Seid: change something and its not “here” or “us” anymore
[2010/10/05 16:22] Extropia DaSilva: No, the hotter something is the more symetrical.
[2010/10/05 16:23] Gwyneth Llewelyn: /me is still waiting for anyone to refute the Anthopic Principle(s) – weak or strong, I don’t care
[2010/10/05 16:23] Serendipity Seraph: yes. of course. we are the resultant of lots and lots of stuff that happened as it did.
[2010/10/05 16:23] Extropia DaSilva: and the early universe was REALLY hot, and so symmetrical even the four forces were basically indistinguishable and unites as one superforce.
[2010/10/05 16:23] Scarp Godenot: OK, does anyone in this group seriously think that There is an imminent end of scientific discovery? I doubt it. Question answered…. hah a
[2010/10/05 16:24] Rhiannon Dragoone: Scap, giggles
[2010/10/05 16:24] Rhiannon Dragoone: Well, good, as i’m going to have to log prolly in about 5 min
[2010/10/05 16:24] Ataraxia Azemus: Wait
[2010/10/05 16:24] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Khannea thinks so, Scarp!
[2010/10/05 16:24] Ataraxia Azemus: Someone has to disagree really quickly on principle to make this a proper SL discussion
[2010/10/05 16:24] Vellora Vella: even science get closer to the bigbang…… how the dices were thrown….. but will be not really understandable for all at least….
[2010/10/05 16:24] Archmage Atlantis: Science is a methodology, and yes it has some philosphical underpinnings that apply………but it is always a methodology, not a belief system…or a source of answers to what “should” be done
[2010/10/05 16:24] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I disagree, Ataraxia — w can hold SL dicussions without disagreeing quickly 🙂
[2010/10/05 16:25] Serendipity Seraph: actually, that doesn’t follow, extie. you can have asymmetry of something at any heat level as hot is a matter of speed of motion of particles
[2010/10/05 16:25] Ataraxia Azemus: We have to fight a consensus together!
[2010/10/05 16:25] Ataraxia Azemus: 😛
[2010/10/05 16:25] Rhiannon Dragoone: ARch, the methodology presupposes some belief systems, though
[2010/10/05 16:25] Scarp Godenot: The beginning of the universe is only one out of an unlimited group of possible questions. Answering it doesn’t mean the end of anything.
[2010/10/05 16:25] Rhiannon Dragoone: Certain research agendas; dominant theories, consensus, all are parts of science
[2010/10/05 16:25] Serendipity Seraph: so before matter was the expanding energy burst uniform? nope
[2010/10/05 16:25] Archmage Atlantis: Said that Rhi
[2010/10/05 16:25] Archmage Atlantis: Scarp already gave the best definition I have heard in a while….last week I think
[2010/10/05 16:25] Gwyneth Llewelyn: yes?
[2010/10/05 16:26] Rhiannon Dragoone: Arch, you said science was just a methodology; and that’s wrong
[2010/10/05 16:26] Rhiannon Dragoone: Sorry
[2010/10/05 16:26] Gwyneth Llewelyn: what was his definition?
[2010/10/05 16:26] Scarp Godenot: If I could remember, I’d tell you! ha ha
[2010/10/05 16:26] Rhiannon Dragoone: /me plugs into the collective memory to remember what Scap is trying to remember
[2010/10/05 16:26] Archmage Atlantis: Why is that wrong, Rhi
[2010/10/05 16:26] Extropia DaSilva: Hmm..but an icecube as atoms in a lattice. Low symmetry because if you turn an icecube you notice the change. But a water has atoms moving about more randomly, so rotational symmetry is increased…and steam even more so…and so it goes on.
[2010/10/05 16:27] Serendipity Seraph: consensus and how to achieve it is part of the methodology of science though. sort of
[2010/10/05 16:27] Rhiannon Dragoone: Seren, well we can expland the definition of methodology, but the point is some beliefs determine science, not the other way around
[2010/10/05 16:27] Ataraxia Azemus: Oh, that’s true
[2010/10/05 16:27] Archmage Atlantis: Yes, that underpins it Seren
[2010/10/05 16:27] Rhiannon Dragoone: Certain data, anomalies, are excluded due to the theory
[2010/10/05 16:27] Ataraxia Azemus: I guess it’s only thematically consistent if we all leave in agreement
[2010/10/05 16:27] Gwyneth Llewelyn: we never do that!
[2010/10/05 16:27] Serendipity Seraph: actually it is the other way around for much of science which is the point of the thing
[2010/10/05 16:28] Rhiannon Dragoone: For what Kuhn calls normal science, maybe, although even there, Seren, there are beliefs undergirding the approach
[2010/10/05 16:28] Archmage Atlantis: Disagree…….if data and anomalies are excluded, the proposed theory of how something “works” is either incomplete or wrong
[2010/10/05 16:28] Vellora Vella: it is total unbelieveable…. that the scientists have found out that we are only about 3-4 percent materia in this universe…….
[2010/10/05 16:29] Serendipity Seraph: we have hunches, hypothesis to explain data and we devise tests, see how well it matches the data compared to alternatives and whether it gives useful predcitions and other goodies.
[2010/10/05 16:29] Rhiannon Dragoone: Arch, well, i don’t disagree with taht, but that is how science does, in fact, proceed
[2010/10/05 16:29] Scarp Godenot: Riannon, a theory MUST account for ALL anomalies in order to be accepted
[2010/10/05 16:29] Scarp Godenot: not true of a hypothesis
[2010/10/05 16:29] Serendipity Seraph: if data is excluded then it is at best an incomplete theory.
[2010/10/05 16:29] Rhiannon Dragoone: Scarp, not true; when Newtonian theory was riddled with anomalies, it didn’t account for them,b ut it was accepted
[2010/10/05 16:30] Scarp Godenot: It wasn’t accepted Rhiannon, it was superceded by those trying to account for the anomalies
[2010/10/05 16:30] Rhiannon Dragoone: There’s a cost benefit analysis, do we chuck a theory that is largely successful because it can’t explain anything
[2010/10/05 16:30] Gwyneth Llewelyn: we can certainly have scientific theories that don’t account for everything!
[2010/10/05 16:30] Serendipity Seraph: not really. a theory may explain all the data with certain properties perfectly and we just don’t know yet about the rest
[2010/10/05 16:30] Archmage Atlantis: Agree, Scarp
[2010/10/05 16:30] Extropia DaSilva: Yeah something like 70% dark energy 55% dark matter..and the leftovers is the ‘visible matter’.
[2010/10/05 16:30] Vellora Vella: yes
[2010/10/05 16:30] Ataraxia Azemus: There can still be lacunae in knowledge–if something can be demonstrated true, but comes with caveats or blurry bits
[2010/10/05 16:30] Rhiannon Dragoone: Exropia, sounds like my pantry
[2010/10/05 16:31] Serendipity Seraph: there are some new theories that would do away with all this troublesome dark matter or much of it
[2010/10/05 16:31] Gwyneth Llewelyn: again, it all depends on one’s imagination to ask better questions 🙂
[2010/10/05 16:31] Serendipity Seraph: but I don’t have the references handy
[2010/10/05 16:31] Rhiannon Dragoone: Seren, string theory (all of them) try to do that
[2010/10/05 16:31] Rhiannon Dragoone: One of the reason for dark matter is that it takes 10x as much gravity as is present due to visible matter to hold the universe together.
[2010/10/05 16:31] Rhiannon Dragoone: In string theory, gravity is 10x greater, but most of its force is in othe dimensions
[2010/10/05 16:31] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Holographic-entropic models of the universe also don’t require dark matter/energy
[2010/10/05 16:32] Scarp Godenot: I must remind people, that any Theory is never a finished product by definition. It is only the accumulation of ‘best evidence’. There are those who misunderstand what a Theory is, but that doesn’t change the defninition.
[2010/10/05 16:32] Serendipity Seraph: I think it is far out superintelligent engineering myself. or just the shape of the simulation we are actualiy in. 🙂
[2010/10/05 16:32] Ataraxia Azemus: A theory is neither written in stone nor a shaky guess
[2010/10/05 16:32] Rhiannon Dragoone: Seren, i think its my hooka personally
[2010/10/05 16:32] Archmage Atlantis: Hear, here, Scarp
[2010/10/05 16:32] Extropia DaSilva: That, and light seems to be bent in places, as if by a vast gravitational field that cannot be explained via normal matter. Oh, and Omega is 1,0 which is VERY hard to explain without dark matter/energy.
[2010/10/05 16:32] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Exactly, Scarp — so, new evidence will provide better theories… and that goes on and on and on… I hardly find the argument that “we’re at the end of science” plausible because of that!
[2010/10/05 16:33] Serendipity Seraph: they wanted galaxies to hold together without the mass balancing right just on the programmers whim you see.
[2010/10/05 16:33] Rhiannon Dragoone: Back to the history of science, there was a long period between the cracks in Newtonian physics and the theories that supposedly supersedit it; and yet there was acceptance, or at least no rejection
[2010/10/05 16:33] Gwyneth Llewelyn: True.
[2010/10/05 16:33] Ataraxia Azemus: That’s the thought I came here with. We’re wrong a lot, and science is full of additions, corrections, revisions and renovations.
[2010/10/05 16:33] Vellora Vella: well i think no theorie is perfect… also Einstein made mistakes….
[2010/10/05 16:34] Rhiannon Dragoone: And decisions, voiing, subjective impressions; it wasn’t facts taht made astronomers downgrade Plato
[2010/10/05 16:34] Serendipity Seraph: science is suppose to give best approximation at a point in time. it is supposed to be changed. that is the point
[2010/10/05 16:34] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Exactly, Ataraxia — and it gets better and better… there is no “best” (which would mean, indeed, “the end of science as we know it”)
[2010/10/05 16:34] Archmage Atlantis: Pluto, Plato is safe
[2010/10/05 16:34] Serendipity Seraph: and the old is seldom wrong so much as not as good
[2010/10/05 16:34] Scarp Godenot: Rhiannon, the acceptance of the new Theory came when evidence superceded the older Theory. Remember that Einstein wasn’t validated until curved space was measured.
[2010/10/05 16:34] Ataraxia Azemus: Haha
[2010/10/05 16:34] Gwyneth Llewelyn: lol arch
[2010/10/05 16:34] Serendipity Seraph: or not covering as much as well
[2010/10/05 16:34] Ataraxia Azemus: I was wondering what the astronomers had against Plato!
[2010/10/05 16:35] Rhiannon Dragoone: well, i need to log. Sorry. Otherwise i would reply to that Scarp. ::winks::
[2010/10/05 16:35] Serendipity Seraph: knowledge is contextual and approximate generally
[2010/10/05 16:35] Gwyneth Llewelyn: heh heh Rhiannon
[2010/10/05 16:35] Rhiannon Dragoone: Thanks everyone for a great convo, thanks for having me Extropia, and thanks for the tp, Zobeid
[2010/10/05 16:35] Extropia DaSilva: Both Uranus and Mercury had orbits that deviated from Newton’s laws. And scientists thought ‘Newton cannot be wrong! There must be as yet undiscovered planets affecting the orbit!’ And they were right where Uranus was concerned but not Mercury. Einstein showed Newton was wrong.
[2010/10/05 16:35] Ataraxia Azemus: Nye Rhia
[2010/10/05 16:35] Gwyneth Llewelyn: see you, oh naked one 🙂
[2010/10/05 16:35] Rhiannon Dragoone: nye, Atara
[2010/10/05 16:35] Peer Infinity: bye Rhi
[2010/10/05 16:35] Extropia DaSilva: Bye!
[2010/10/05 16:35] Ataraxia Azemus: Doh
[2010/10/05 16:35] Rhiannon Dragoone: see you, Gwyn. ::blushes at the sobriquet::
[2010/10/05 16:35] Ataraxia Azemus: That was a sneezy typo
[2010/10/05 16:35] Gwyneth Llewelyn: /me grins
[2010/10/05 16:36] Archmage Atlantis: Rhi leaves to strains of “it’s the end of the world as we know it” 🙂
[2010/10/05 16:36] Serendipity Seraph: sure but Newton was right on 99.9% of the cases much of physics dealt with at the time.
[2010/10/05 16:36] Peer: /me gives Rhiannon a big hug.
[2010/10/05 16:36] Peer Infinity: 🙂
[2010/10/05 16:36] Extropia DaSilva: OK well nearly time to end..So show of hands yay or nay will science every end?
[2010/10/05 16:36] Rhiannon Dragoone: “But I feel fine!”
[2010/10/05 16:36] Rhiannon Dragoone: /me hugs Peer
[2010/10/05 16:36] Extropia DaSilva: *ever
[2010/10/05 16:36] Serendipity Seraph: where is that paw, peer?:)
[2010/10/05 16:36] Peer Infinity: /me giggles 🙂
[2010/10/05 16:36] Ataraxia Azemus: Ever ever EVER?
[2010/10/05 16:36] Lem Skall: X
[2010/10/05 16:36] Rhiannon Dragoone: Extr;opia, count me on the science will never end side
[2010/10/05 16:36] Vellora Vella: it is also time for me… before sun raises here in Austria again… cu and good day.. or night
[2010/10/05 16:36] Rhiannon Dragoone: /me waves and poofs
[2010/10/05 16:37] Gwyneth Llewelyn: No, science will never end in *this* civilisation.
[2010/10/05 16:37] Scarp Godenot: I think that we tend to take a practitioner of science who clings to a belief and expand that out to all science practitioners. Like Fred Hoyle clinging to the Steady State Theory until the bitter end. But even he came around in the end.
[2010/10/05 16:37] Serendipity Seraph: likely never. the future huge Mind would just have to invent something else if it did
[2010/10/05 16:37] Ataraxia Azemus: I’ll lean cautiously toward science continuing as long as humans are still around and wondering what all this is 🙂
[2010/10/05 16:37] Archmage Atlantis: Hey, swipes left over hug hang on floor from Peer
[2010/10/05 16:37] Extropia DaSilva: Well OK it will end when the universe no longer allows information processing. But by then we will have engineered another one.
[2010/10/05 16:37] Extropia DaSilva: .
[2010/10/05 16:37] Lem Skall: btw, there is science being made at the same time by aliens
[2010/10/05 16:38] Extropia DaSilva: 🙂
[2010/10/05 16:38] Gwyneth Llewelyn: well, we can enter a science-less civilisation after the end of the current one…
[2010/10/05 16:38] Ataraxia Azemus: Aliens are weird though
[2010/10/05 16:38] Extropia DaSilva: OK my time is up!
[2010/10/05 16:38] Serendipity Seraph: aliens?
[2010/10/05 16:38] Lem Skall: aliens are slimy
[2010/10/05 16:38] Extropia DaSilva: NEXT WEEK: CAN MMORPGS SAVE THE WORLD?