Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.pagan,talk.philosophy.misc,comp.ai.philosophy,alt.consciousness,alt.paranormal.channeling,alt.consciousness.mysticism
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!utgpu!pindor
From: pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: Randomness is a human concept (was Re: Time is a human concept)
Message-ID: <D03t1A.E03@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCC Public Access
References: <CzDKJD.FH4@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <3beh97$ds9@cascade.pnw.net> <D01LsF.Co7@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <3bhedl$9hh@cascade.pnw.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 23:24:45 GMT
Lines: 165

In article <3bhedl$9hh@cascade.pnw.net>, Don Edwards <warrl@pnw.net> wrote:
>Andrzej Pindor (pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>"In article <3beh97$ds9@cascade.pnw.net>, Don Edwards <warrl@pnw.net> wrote:
>
>"(your article is too long to comment in detail. I'll just point out few
>"places where you are showing clear antropomorphization, for which there is
>"no support, except human arrogance)
>
>You point out *very* few indeed.  The essence of your argument is

I do not have time to delve on every misconception of yours.

>that the laws of physics, which dictate such things as the relative
>abundance of isotopes, are changed according to the nature of the
>intelligent species living nearby.
>
No, essence of what I am saying is that what we call "laws of nature" is
our way of seeing the reality, determined by our brain structure, sensory 
apparatus and environment in which we happen to live. And why "nearby" would
have anything to do with the subject of the discussion??

>What we know for a fact is that there is *no* evidence that this
>is true, and further that the relative abundance of various isotopes
>does *not* change in any significant matter across the observable
>universe -- which is what, 12 billion light-years?  Which strongly
>indicates that the laws of physics *don't* change.
>
First of all "we know for fact" only means "as far as I know". And you are
wrong. Read Lakoff.
Secondly, are you saying that we have experimental evidence that a ratio
of isotopes of heaver elements in distant galaxies is the same as in our 
corner of galaxy? I may be wrong, but it seems to me that spectral data are 
not accurate enough to say this. Ratios of isotopes in distant past are
results of models of the universe (Big Bang etc) and these theories are
adjusted so as to fit the ratios observed in our vicinity. In fact there is 
a lot of things which these models do not reproduce (dark matter for one).
Recent observations which seem to require a smaller Hubble's constant may
lead to serious revisions of cosmological models. Also are you saying that
isotope ratios in old stars are the same as in young ones? Or in blue
giants the same as in brown dwarfs? I have not checked it out in detail, but
I would be surprised.
>
>">Guess again.  This becomes true to a *limited* extent when ordinary
>"                                                            ^^^^^^^^
>""ordinary" for whom?
>
>Read the context, and you will discover that this question is 
>ludicrous.  
>
No, it was a rethorical question. By "ordinary" you mean "ordinary for humans".

>">isotopes) before they become intimately familiar with the *much* more
>">profound, and *much* more readily observable, direct effects of
>" ^^^^^^^^      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^       
>""profound" for whom? "*much* more readily observable" for whom? Even for 
>"aliens living inside stars?
>
>Profound for entities who care enough about the properties of matter
>to be *able* to rank the elements in the fashion you suggest.  (Obviously,

What if they have very different senses? For instance can sense atomic mass
directly? What if they draw energy from radioactive decay? 

>any entities who do *not* care about the properties of matter are
>beyond the scope of this discussion -- they won't have a periodic
>table for us to try to read.
>
How about if different properties of matter are important for them then for 
us? 

>Aliens living inside of stars -- in most of the volume of a star,
>the dominant characteristics are chemical, not nuclear.  In a small

They may be chemical, but this is not our type of chemistry. At 50,000K
or more most electrons would be stripped off.

>fraction of the volume, plasma is the most common state of matter
>and in a portion of that, the plasma is so hot that chemical properties
>decline in significance.  (The area where fusion occurs is smaller

Actually, as far as I know in most of star's interior the dominant processes
involve interaction of ions with magnetic fields. What chemical process do
you refer to?

>yet.)  But already at this point, material structures are impossible.
>Energy structures -- we have yet to encounter a persistent energy
>structure which is *not* based on a physical structure.  Information
>structures are in all known cases based on energy structures or
>physical structures.  The essence of life is a structure that is
>capable of duplicating itself using nearby "stuff".  Thus, we have
>no reason to believe that life of *any* kind can exist in the
>critical portion of a star where nuclear properties are more important
>than chemical properties.
>
First of all, perhaps "life as we know it". Secondly, I do not see how 
the last sentence follows from the previous ones. There is enough energy
and matter inside any part of a star to support "energy structures". We
do not know enough about nuclear matter to make any predictions what sort of
structures can exist there.

>">(This basically requires that the aliens live near the core of a
>">star or in the innermost portions of an accretion disk, as these
>">are about the only places where fusion is commonplace.)
>
>"Why not? 
>
>Why not what?
>
Why couldn't aliens live there?

>">A different way of looking at the universe might remove any interest
>">in the periodic table -- but if an alien species has any interest
>">at all, and makes any scientific progress worth noting, they will
>"                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>""Worth noting" by whom?
>
>By entities who might be interested in finding a periodic table
>in the midst of an alien civilization (or its remnants).
>
You seem to overlook the fact that it is you who are determining what would
be "worth noting" (scientific progress, as we understand it).

>">end up with a structure which *must* convey certain information.
>">The more progress they make, the more certain it is that their
>">periodic table will carry the same information as ours and be
>">instantly decodable as soon as it is identified.
>
>"This would only be (and very partly) true if aliens were very much like us
>"and lived in similiar environment
>
>This would be absolutely true if the aliens were enough like us to
                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>attempt to understand the nature of chemical elements and live in
>the same universe.
>
And if they were not? 
BTW, the only things which are absolutely true are death and taxes. I mean 
and if you do not think so, it means that you are very young (this is not
an objection, more expression of envy :-)).

>"Try to break out of restrictions of your imagination.
>
>Likewise.  Reality has been out of the restrictions of *your*
>imagination for a *long* time.
>
You mean imagining that reality may me different than a model of it we have
built, shows a restriction of imaginations??

>Imagine this: it *is* possible for human scientists to know
>something, and be correct.

It depends what is your criterion of "correct". There is another thread 
touching upon this. A criterion I use is "consistent with _our_ observations".
This is an only criterion which makes sense for us. There is no guarantee
that there cannot be another model fitting the same observations (in fact
there are restricted examples that this is possible; note Occam's razor -
this is a practical criterion, matter of taste). In addition, suffciently
different aliens might have different observations.

Andrzej
-- 
Andrzej Pindor                        The foolish reject what they see and 
University of Toronto                 not what they think; the wise reject
Instructional and Research Computing  what they think and not what they see.
pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca                           Huang Po
