[QUOTE=Wolf_Rider;320337]the theories involving " the law of physics" are subject to questioning though


QUOTE]



this is true. but even if faster than light travel is possible, civilizations could still be effectively isolated by the shear number of planetary systems out there.

in other words even if an advanced civilization has faster than light travel, the odds would still be extremely long against them stumbling upon our little blue world.

Other dimensions are certainly a critical part in traveling to further reaches of the universe.
The thing is we are 3-dimensional beings with time as the 4th dimension sort of tacked on and taken for an unchangeable constant. Introducing other dimensions is something that we will probably not be able to comprehend.

For example, take a 2-dimensional critter, maybe and ant, and put it on a ball.
It will run and run and never ever be able to understand that it is running on a ball, a 3-dimensional object.

Something that puzzles me is also, if the universe is finite one should be able theoretically to reach it's end and to look at it from the outside. But what is on the outside, another finite universe, infinite space, nothing? How, as a 3-dimensional, spacewise, being can you wrap your head around the concept of a finite or infinite universe?

I think that the ant would run down to the base of the ball, once on the table he would make a bee line for your sandwich. :grin:

You guys should read Zacharia Sitchin's theory (there's a series of books about it) and read about the Phobos incident..

Then we can talk about UFO's :)

That really depends upon

A) do they have big teeth?
and
B) What do they taste like?

Cheers

However it cannot comprehend the dimensions of the sandwich since it's a 3-dimensional sandwich and upon approaching the sandwich anyway my 3-dimensional hand would turn the 2-dimensional ant into a 1-dimensional ant......uhhh yeah, stone cold killer here :rolleyes:

Actually I agree with what you say about observation - I am simply pointing out that an infinite universe does NOT imply that every possibility is actualised. This just incorrect logic and mathematics.

(Which I think I might be able to demonstrate in another way which avoids having to multiply be infinity....

Suppose that we agree that, if we go to any other single solar system, the probability of finding "unreasonable" and "Skoshi Toger" debating the universe is less than 1.00 - lets say it is 0.10 ;-)

Then we go to the first solar system we come to and look. The probability of NOT finding the debaters is 0.90 so let us assume we do not find them.

We go to the next planet - the probability is again 0.90

So from the beginning the probability of NOT finding the debaters on any planet of the first two is 0.90 x 0.90 = 0.81

We can continue this process infinitely - 0.90x0.90x0.90 etc

The point is that while the product approaches zero, it never actually reaches zero. So we can never be 100% certain that we will find the debaters. So the argument that an infinite universe must necessarily contain every possibility fails.)

As for the BIG THINKERS - I went to university with many of these scientists (in fact I started out as one myself) and I can assure you that hardly any of them are much more intelligent than you or I, and even the best of them are just as prone to poor reasoning and category mistakes as anyone else when they step away from their narrow fields of enquiry. Stephen Hawking for instance is a famously lousy philospher despite having a brain the size of a planet. He is wasted on physics - we should kidnap him and put him to work on CloD's AI!

All you've done there is explain logic as...

At this moment:
Are you at the front door? - no
Are you in the kitchen? - no
If you aren't in the kitchen or at the front door, you must be somewhere else(?) - yes
If you are somewhere else, you cannot be at your computer reading this.


there is, as you offer, a 0.1 chance of finding and an equal 0.9 chance of not finding... in that moment, you have two posbilities... there in, there is a universe in which you do find and equally existant is a universe in which you do not find, and that is just for the planet you chose to look on first, in the solar system you chose to look in first = a multitude of parallel universes just involvolving; will I find?

That is just so true!...even Stephen Hawking agrees to stay hidden because humans can be great on the plasma grill:grin:

Now this is mixing up multiple possible observations of a single actual universe (finite or not) with the actual possibility of observing multiple universes :confused:

The mistake here is your phrase "equally existent". The possibilities only exist as logical objects, they are not actual. The actual outcome is there whether or not we look, the looking just finds out what is already there. It is just a fluke of language that we can use the word "exists" about logical objects and physical objects, it really does not mean the same thing in the two cases.

This is for classical objects like flight simmers, BTW