Star Ship had its 12th test. They did some hardcore failsafe tests. And the ship and booster still “survived” the tests. They splashed down into the ocean. They didnt want to risk landing them just incase they didnt survive the tests.
2 Likes
If anyone is interested, Julian Gough (egg and the rock, cosmic natural selection guy) just published his latest extremely-long-but-making-testable-predictions theory based on his ideas, this one about spiral galaxy formation:
1 Like
“with just a soupçon of actual math.”
I was told there would be no math.
1 Like
So a soupçon is really a small soupcan?
Yes, I’m interested. It’s been a while since he slayed me.
1 Like
It’s French for “Le petit can de whoopass” so basically
2 Likes
I haven’t read it yet both because I’ve had a 10% Big Hearted IPA from the local place(Bell’s) and that I’m too tired to actually grasp what this guy is saying and also I’m probably too dumb to grasp what he’s saying. But, the synopsis looks pretty damn cool.
The last part is very cool–and is kind of intuitively my assumption about what’s actually “happening,” although I am obviously not the first to think this (see: Buddha, The). Not sure how such a thing could be “proven” in any meaningful way, though I admit, trying to do that quickly gets into mathematical arguments that are way over my head.
While I love reading about this stuff though, it’s really really hard to find good writeups from people who both understand the science being proposed and can clearly explain it, without taking shortcuts that make what they’re saying inaccurate. In this case, my alarm bells went off in the first sentence. “Mathematically proven that evolution guarantees” is just… not the kind of language that people rigorously trying to demonstrate something use.
But even if you accept that sentence was written by someone who’s not really a scientist but reading real science and just excited about it, the rest of the description is pretty suspect. Just because it’s a string of terms–“consciousness,” “disembodied,” “non-human intelligences,” “reality”–whose basic definitions are all HIGHLY contested across philosophy and cognitive science. Every one of those terms represents like an entire body of inquiry in itself with no clear answers, so claiming that someone has mathematically proven they come together to signify something else is a stretch of a stretch of a stretch–regardless of what the actual underlying claim might be.
2 Likes
This is my hit in it as well… opening statement or thesis statement even m and, for me, evolution isn’t 100% In completeness….
More theory that fact imho….
1 Like
And a nonitellitgent entity larger than us working its way into a program to manipulate it moves towards ID as well…. I’m biased on this and then the bigbang obviously…
But science is very cool!!
I mean, I agree it’s sloppy in general in terms of question-begging and leaving terms loosely defined. But I’d say the same about how you’re using “evolution” now. The basic concept that more complex/current lifeforms evolved from simpler/previous lifeforms through the mechanism of natural selection is about as “proven” as any hypothesis in science.
Also just noting that, IMO, your position on ID and evolution seems contradictory. You seem to argue that the universe as it exists is the product of an intelligent entity’s intent–an assertion that isn’t contradicted by any evidence we see in the world around us and probably could not be disproven scientifically (and that plenty of scientists also believe). But then on the other hand, you seem to selectively reject any evidence of the mechanism of this intent that isn’t “supernatural miracle.” I’d suggest what you’re asserting is NOT just that the universe is the product of divine intent, but that the designer’s intent must work in only the very specific way you believe it should–which is much less defensible claim IMO.
2 Likes
I think at that point you get into macro and micro discussions with regards to how everything connects in the ID discussion/belief.
Interesting fact. If the known universe is the ocean. Weve only checked 1 above ground pool worth of planets for life.
1 Like
Were Ants in an Ant farm.
1 Like
Do Not Like
My wife does NOT need to read this shit.
3 Likes
2 Likes
Yes. Any endeavor to comprehend the universe(s) should involve humility.
The world’s smartest dog is never going to understand how a television works.
Harry Potter never meets JK Rowling.
We quite likely are the dog, or even a Harry Potter in this situation. Admitting intellectual limitation goes against our nature, so the exercise in futility will continue.
3 Likes
Sooooo, the best we can hope for isn’t Ozymandius or even Rorshach, but Nite Owl vs whatever Dr Manhattan is out there?
Well, at least we get Obvious Sex Analogies!
2 Likes
Are you suggesting that someone is actually watching the watchers? Scandalous!