Doubts about basic assumption for the universe

[Catastrophe]

With IT does not the same apply as with computers? Whatever in whatever out?

As a scientist I have to admit that my reply was a bit tongue in cheek.

Thank you for that extensive reply. Before continuing, may I check that I am typing in the right place. I cannot get rid of the bold.'

You're typing inside an opening quote tag after the "equals" sign  -- that's where the bold is coming from. You need to place your message outside of all the opening and closing quote tags as well as avoiding the content between them. Instead of replying at the the top, just go to the very bottom of the quoted text and well beyond the last of that BB-code stuff (to stay clear of it).

Or use the "Quick Reply"  box at the bottom of a thread until you get accustomed to things. It won't automatically quote what you're responding to, but for the time being people can still figure it out.

You're not the first in here to have problems like that. You'll get the hang of it.

[C C]

"No matter where we look, the same rules apply everywhere in space: countless calculations of astrophysics are based on this basic principle."

Why should we think that our observations over a tiny time period over a minute part of just one galaxy should apply everywhere? Is this not anthropomorphism gone mad?

Welcome back, Catastrophe.

Arguably not much choice for humans, since a bias for seeking and abstracting general principles, wide-ranging values, and concepts at least universally applicable to the specific area of interest seems inherent for understanding and (potentially) manipulating/exploiting the latter (or most things). The degree of success of whatever _X_ approach and its regulating ideas is usually waved around as signifying that investigators and inference-makers are possibly discerning something either pervasive or "objective" rather than projecting their predilections into the world.

But OTOH [...]

[...] As a scientist I have to admit that my reply was a bit tongue in cheek.

My bad, then.

As someone who irregularly ranges the gamut from subtly to sloppily facetious, I ought to be good at speedily recognizing it in others without a familiarization period. But often far from the case.

[Catastrophe]

This is daunting. Sorry. Is this the right box? At least this is not in bold. Difficult decision when the cursor is flashing elsewhere. Anyway, even as a scientist I doubt that the same models exist far beyond our Solar System. Science dictates that we make these assumptions, or, rather some scientist does. My view, which I hope I have in common, is to try to make sense of our surroundings. Sometimes, for whatever reason, science gets mixed with personal ambitions - Gobbledegook's Law saves his place in History. Sadly, nothing is perfect in this world. Nothing above or herein constitutes any criticism whatsoever of any person, scientist or otherwise.
  

"No matter where we look, the same rules apply everywhere in space: countless calculations of astrophysics are based on this basic principle."

Why should we think that our observations over a tiny time period over a minute part of just one galaxy should apply everywhere? Is this not anthropomorphism gone mad?

Welcome back, Catastrophe.

Arguably not much choice for humans, since a bias for seeking and abstracting general principles, wide-ranging values, and concepts at least universally applicable to the specific area of interest seems inherent for understanding and (potentially) manipulating/exploiting the latter (or most things). The degree of success of whatever _X_ approach and its regulating ideas is usually waved around as signifying that investigators and inference-makers are possibly discerning something either pervasive or "objective" rather than projecting their predilections into the world.

But OTOH [...]

[...] As a scientist I have to admit that my reply was a bit tongue in cheek.

My bad, then.

As someone who irregularly ranges the gamut from subtly to sloppily facetious, I ought to be good at speedily recognizing it in others without a familiarization period. But often far from the case. 

[C C]

This is daunting. Sorry. Is this the right box? At least this is not in bold. Difficult decision when the cursor is flashing elsewhere.

The trick is to stay outside all the boxes defined and caused by these opening and closing tags: {quote}copied content goes here{/quote}.

Including that very kind of mess where they are nested inside each other. Example:

{quote="Cher"}
{quote="Elvis"}

Elvis's previous text content

{/quote}

Cher's previous text content

{/quote}

Actual current reply by Elvis goes here at bottom, completely outside of that code mess.

- - -

NOTE: Substituted squiggly brackets above, so they wouldn't get rendered into quote boxes.

You also don't have to carry slash keep repeating the entire past discussion -- you can delete all the stuff except what you're specifically replying to.

You can even bypass the whole BB-code system and simply copy & paste text on your own and affix your own way of distinguishing the other poster's text from your own responses.

Anyway, even as a scientist I doubt that the same models exist far beyond our Solar System. Science dictates that we make these assumptions, or, rather some scientist does. My view, which I hope I have in common, is to try to make sense of our surroundings. Sometimes, for whatever reason, science gets mixed with personal ambitions - Gobbledegook's Law saves his place in History. Sadly, nothing is perfect in this world. Nothing above or herein constitutes any criticism whatsoever of any person, scientist or otherwise.

I added my own {quote}content{/quote} tags around that part of your message above to create a separate quote box. And again, I'm placing this reply completely outside the tags so this text doesn't get included in the quote box.

But you don't have to necessarily break a whole quoted message into sections like this that you address each individually (at least not yet, before you get acclimated to this stuff). People can still figure out on their own what part you're specifically responding to.

Now on to what a brief comment of mine might be:

Speaking of solar systems, our own certainly didn't turn out to be the "average" template once exoplanets discoveries began taking place. Mediocrity principle, my foot. (RELATED: Rare Earth hypothesis)

[Yazata]

'"No matter where we look, the same rules apply everywhere in space: countless calculations of astrophysics are based on this basic principle."Why should we think that our observations over a tiny time period over a minute part of just one galaxy should apply everywhere? Is this not anthropomorphism gone mad?'"

Hi, Catastrophe.

I've wondered about that too. I don't know how we could ever prove that our observations here and now will apply with equal accuracy every-where and every-when. It just looks like a huge metaphysical assumption to me. Do a few experiments, collect a handful of confirming instances, then believe that we have identified a fundamental principle that holds true necessarily, throughout space and time.

The assumption has been very successful in the past and seemingly much of science is built atop it, especially the science that addresses large time and space scales. Many observations only seem to make sense when we make the assumption. But I'm not sure how one could ever demonstrate that it holds true universally.

So it's not all that hard for me to hypothesize that perhaps subtly different physical principles hold true in different regions of space-time. This evidence that CC writes about might be a first-taste of something like that.

[Zinjanthropos]

....perhaps subtly different physical principles hold true in different regions of space-time. 

As in other galaxies? Each a universe in itself?

Would that be another reason why contacting other intelligences is difficult?

[Catastrophe]

....perhaps subtly different physical principles hold true in different regions of space-time. 

As in other galaxies? Each a universe in itself?

Would that be another reason why contacting other intelligences is difficult?

Is this the right place. Incidentally I composed a long reply yesterday and unfortunately the line dropped, and I lost it all. I usually find the composition survives, even if you turn your pc off and on.
I should not have these problems   I know I am 81  but I had one of the first Tandy TRS-80s in the UK and that was before the Spectrum. Bit like a Model T.

I did say that I am a scientist (B.Sc. Chemical Engineering) and am not some looney who doubts everything. I mean, we all know the Earth is flat, don't we?  (Don't worry, only joking).
As far as planet average is concerned, I know that things are improving but obviously the gas giants would be found first.

---

This is daunting. Sorry. Is this the right box? At least this is not in bold. Difficult decision when the cursor is flashing elsewhere.

The trick is to stay outside all the boxes defined and caused by these opening and closing tags: {quote}copied content goes here{/quote}.

Including that very kind of mess where they are nested inside each other. Example:

{quote="Cher"}
{quote="Elvis"}

Elvis's previous text content

{/quote}

Cher's previous text content

{/quote}

Actual current reply by Elvis goes here at bottom, completely outside of that code mess.

- - -

NOTE: Substituted squiggly brackets above, so they wouldn't get rendered into quote boxes.

You also don't have to carry slash keep repeating the entire past discussion -- you can delete all the stuff except what you're specifically replying to.

You can even bypass the whole BB-code system and simply copy & paste text on your own and affix your own way of distinguishing the other poster's text from your own responses.

Anyway, even as a scientist I doubt that the same models exist far beyond our Solar System. Science dictates that we make these assumptions, or, rather some scientist does. My view, which I hope I have in common, is to try to make sense of our surroundings. Sometimes, for whatever reason, science gets mixed with personal ambitions - Gobbledegook's Law saves his place in History. Sadly, nothing is perfect in this world. Nothing above or herein constitutes any criticism whatsoever of any person, scientist or otherwise.

I added my own {quote}content{/quote} tags around that part of your message above to create a separate quote box. And again, I'm placing this reply completely outside the tags so this text doesn't get included in the quote box.

But you don't have to necessarily break a whole quoted message into sections like this that you address each individually (at least not yet, before you get acclimated to this stuff). People can still figure out on their own what part you're specifically responding to. 

Now on to what a brief comment of mine might be:

Speaking of solar systems,  our own certainly didn't turn out to be the "average" template once exoplanets discoveries began taking place. Mediocrity principle, my foot. (RELATED: Rare Earth hypothesis)

CATASTROPHE

From your Wiki ref:

QUOTE
In the 1970s and 1980s, Carl Sagan and Frank Drake, among others, argued that Earth is a typical rocky planet in a typical planetary system, located in a non-exceptional region of a common barred-spiral galaxy. From the principle of mediocrity (extended from the Copernican principle), they argued that we are typical, and the universe teems with complex life. However, Ward and Brownlee argue that planets, planetary systems, and galactic regions that are as friendly to complex life as the Earth, the Solar System, and our galactic region are rare.
QUOTE

We seem bugged by anthropomorphism. Why on Earth should life follow exactly our template? From what I have seen on this planet, life will take advantage of what is available. It may be very difficult  Now, quite rightly, we place great importance on water. We know that it has very special properties - especially hydrogen bonding, but that does not mean that life in a hydrocarbon sea is totally impossible. Yes, it is impossible by our standards. That I accept of course. Like TV is impossible to fish.  But I never forget our place in the Universe. I am convinced beyond doubt that there are countless systems with life amongst the billions of planets around billions of stars in billions of galaxies. Earth unique - non starter.

P.S. I very much appreciate your kind assistance. Next time I will look at boxes. This time I have played safe and gone to the very bottom.

[Zinjanthropos]

Catastrophe...

I know I am 81  

Welcome aboard Cat. 

Hope I get there with all my marbles in the bag. I'm behind you by a few years but not in any hurry to catch up.

[Catastrophe]

Catastrophe:

Coming back to the initial statement


QUOTE
For they have put the isotropy hypothesis to the test for the first time with a new method that allows more reliable statements than before. With an unexpected result: According to this method, some areas in space expand faster than they should, while others expand more slowly than expected.
QUOTE

Is this not to be expected in a Universe which (even according to our limited knowledge) is not isotropic. We don't even understand 95% of it.

[zhangjinyuan]

I think in the same bottle, there may be different effects, but there is the same rule