3 ms·

It's such a simplistic mindset. We define life as "what occurs on earth" and we expect to find it elsewhere in a universe with infinite dimension, variation an

It's such a simplistic mindset. We define life as "what occurs on earth" and we expect to find it elsewhere in a universe with infinite dimension, variation and depth. Wolfram's principle of computational equivalence may very well be right, we could see life everywhere and not even know it. Maybe to recognize life we have to be related to it, maybe theres some sort of temporal entanglement going on or something, I don't know. All I do know is that a bug on my shirt doesn't know that I have a face, love my wife, talk to people on the internet, drive a car, look at pictures of mars or even that a planet exists, much less other planets. And we expect to be able to recognize higher intelligence when we see it? It's unrealistic, it's a simplistic mindset that shows a lack of understanding of even what it is this universe is doing here. And I don't claim to know that either, but I do see that theres infinite dimension no matter what resolution you look, everywhere, all the time, happening real time, and if its too big or too small I can't perceive it. Maybe the same is true everywhere for everything that can experience. Maybe observant entities that emerged completely separately are incapable of even perceiving each other.

Maursault 4y ago
> in a universe with infinite dimension, variation and depth. Poetic license? Not only are there not infinite dimensions, none of the three or four dimensions we know about are infinite.
qwytw 4y ago
Well you work with the data and evidence you have and make conclusions based on it. You could start hypothesizing about "higher" intelligence and infinite dimensions all you want but if you have no way to measure or detect those things it's not worth much and well.. your approaching SciFi territory at that point. Starting with simpler methods is not really a choice since there are no other options. > lack of understanding "Simplistic" understanding based on primitive evidence is still better than seeing "infinite dimensions" without any data to back it up. It's not obvious that any higher beings (compared to humans) even exist, they might they might not. So maybe we should focus on detecting any signs of any kind of intelligence or life in the first place (after even a bug should be able to tell a human apart from a rock when it bumps into one?).
mensetmanusman 4y ago
This is just redefining life to include something we can’t interact with or even understand, but that defeats the purpose of the definition as understood by the public understanding such research funding. The goal is to answer: “is there relatable life that has any change of interacting with the human mind somewhere in the nearby speck of our seemingly-infinite universe” this get’s phrased as “is there life out there” in common parlance.
Deegy 4y ago
I find your comment insulting to the people who spend time and resources in the search for life outside our planet. You make it sound like they're unimaginative dolts. It's not simplistic, it's simply practical. Either we search for life as we know it, or we don't search at all. You can pontificate all you want about how incomprehensible extraterrestrial life could be, but where does that get us? Further, I find that ant/human trope to be cerebral wankery. Sure, ants can't comprehend what they've encountered, even as they crawl up our leg. But the gap between our intelligence levels is enormous. I think it's much more likely that humans fall far enough right on the intelligence spectrum that we would be able to spot and recognize other forms of life in the universe, even if they happen to be 100x more intelligent than us.
- monkeydreams 4y ago
  > It's not simplistic, it's simply practical. Either we search for life as we know it, or we don't search at all. So we are the drunk looking for his keys in the pool of light under the streetlamp, but not in the dark carpark where we dropped them?
  - Deegy 4y ago
    Huh? Even a drunk under a lamp is capable of having a moment of realization that he may want to look in the dark carpark, as he was there earlier. That's within his realm of experience. But please, tell me how we are to even begin looking for life as we don't know it? What are your suggestions?

Maursault 4y ago

> in a universe with infinite dimension, variation and depth. Poetic license? Not only are there not infinite dimensions, none of the three or four dimensions we know about are infinite.

qwytw 4y ago

Well you work with the data and evidence you have and make conclusions based on it. You could start hypothesizing about "higher" intelligence and infinite dimensions all you want but if you have no way to measure or detect those things it's not worth much and well.. your approaching SciFi territory at that point. Starting with simpler methods is not really a choice since there are no other options. > lack of understanding "Simplistic" understanding based on primitive evidence is still better than seeing "infinite dimensions" without any data to back it up. It's not obvious that any higher beings (compared to humans) even exist, they might they might not. So maybe we should focus on detecting any signs of any kind of intelligence or life in the first place (after even a bug should be able to tell a human apart from a rock when it bumps into one?).

mensetmanusman 4y ago

This is just redefining life to include something we can’t interact with or even understand, but that defeats the purpose of the definition as understood by the public understanding such research funding. The goal is to answer: “is there relatable life that has any change of interacting with the human mind somewhere in the nearby speck of our seemingly-infinite universe” this get’s phrased as “is there life out there” in common parlance.

Deegy 4y ago

I find your comment insulting to the people who spend time and resources in the search for life outside our planet. You make it sound like they're unimaginative dolts. It's not simplistic, it's simply practical. Either we search for life as we know it, or we don't search at all. You can pontificate all you want about how incomprehensible extraterrestrial life could be, but where does that get us? Further, I find that ant/human trope to be cerebral wankery. Sure, ants can't comprehend what they've encountered, even as they crawl up our leg. But the gap between our intelligence levels is enormous. I think it's much more likely that humans fall far enough right on the intelligence spectrum that we would be able to spot and recognize other forms of life in the universe, even if they happen to be 100x more intelligent than us.

monkeydreams 4y ago
> It's not simplistic, it's simply practical. Either we search for life as we know it, or we don't search at all. So we are the drunk looking for his keys in the pool of light under the streetlamp, but not in the dark carpark where we dropped them?
- Deegy 4y ago
  Huh? Even a drunk under a lamp is capable of having a moment of realization that he may want to look in the dark carpark, as he was there earlier. That's within his realm of experience. But please, tell me how we are to even begin looking for life as we don't know it? What are your suggestions?