World, Writing, Wealth discussion
The Lounge: Chat. Relax. Unwind.
>
Help NASA to compose a new Golden Record
The most important one would be the wrong address.
Ian wrote: "The most important one would be the wrong address."-:)
So skeptical towards aliens?
Can they be worse than some of our own politicians? -:)
Nik wrote: "Ian wrote: "The most important one would be the wrong address."-:)
So skeptical towards aliens?
Can they be worse than some of our own politicians? -:)"
Yes, because they have more power, and even if they are not malicious, unintentional consequences could be awful. This is a theme that is expanded more in my "First Contact" trilogy. Look at the way more primitive cultures have succumbed when they become aware of more modern societies on this planet. Then think what happens of they are not benign?
Ian wrote: "Nik wrote: "Ian wrote: "The most important one would be the wrong address."-:)
So skeptical towards aliens?
Can they be worse than some of our own politicians? -:)"
Yes, because they have more p..."
For example how mad will they be when the probe breaks up in their atmosphere and spreads the nuclear fuel all over their planet...
Ian wrote: "Yes, because they have more power, and even if they are not malicious, unintentional consequences could be awful...."That's an assumption. They can have less power or just be different or indifferent to power, contact whatever.
What things do you think represent best the mankind though?
J.J. wrote: "For example how mad will they be when the probe breaks up in their atmosphere and spreads the nuclear fuel all over their planet...."You do have apocalyptic inclination, J.J. -:)
What represents us best in your opinion?
My reasoning was this: either they can cross interstellar space or they cannot. If they cannot, it does not matter what we put on this record, nor does it matter if nobody ever sees it. However, they can only see it if they have the means to capture it in space, as the heat of entry to another planet will destroy anything significant. If they can capture an object in space, probably with relative velocities in the hundreds of km/s, then perforce they have space going technology. If they can capture that, and crossed interstellar space, they are technologically very far advanced on us.If they can cross interstellar space, either they will leave us alone or they will not. If they leave us alone, again it does not really matter. The problem is, if they will not. If they will not, then almost certainly they will not be benevolent, because if they were benevolent, they would leave us alone. What they will not do is give us technology, for obvious reasons, and anything else they do will be to our detriment.
Sound reasoning. The question beside 'if' is also 'when' somebody intercepts it. The progress here still seems to continue and who knows how advanced we'll be in 200 years.Before we judge aliens, are we benevolent or malevolent?
Nik wrote: "J.J. wrote: "For example how mad will they be when the probe breaks up in their atmosphere and spreads the nuclear fuel all over their planet...."You do have apocalyptic inclination, J.J. -:)
Wh..."
I keep thinking about what represents us best, and I struggle to think of anything that could be put on a "record." I would have to say "writing" is our single most important invention since it was what allowed us to record our discoveries, our observations, our culture. Without the need to memorize everything, writing has allowed us to explore increasingly complex concepts. You might be inclined to say our computers/cell phones/etc. are bigger, but without a written language, our devices would not function. Nor would we ever have invented them without a way to store every discovery that led to those products.
But you can't exactly demonstrate "writing" by itself. You do so with examples, so the question is what examples double as a demonstration of this ability and a representation of us? With our technology and our level of data storage, it might be possible to include just about every piece of literature ever created.
Otherwise, how do you choose? If you had to decide between examples of Socrates or Shakespeare, who makes the cut? What about art? Could you decide between Da vinci, Rembrandt, etc.?
Maybe if you want to showcase society today, what is more impressive than the probe itself? While I'm not a fan of city-life, I do have a fascination for the upward development. I am in awe every time I see an update of the skyline in Dubai...they had that tower fire that hit the news recently, and I was absolutely struck by how everything fits around their signature Burj Dubai. The trend in New York City right now is these luxury super-skinny towers. Admittedly they are ugly against the skyline, but I find their development fascinating nonetheless. Maybe I would include images of some of our most urban metropolises from around the world as an example of our engineering skill.
Yep, writing, art and urban skyline is a solid pick. As of who: I'm not sure Eminem is inferior to Byron and vice versa-:), so probably a random choice should work
We don't even know an alien culture would appreciate what we consider music, no matter the genre or artist.There was an episode of Stargate ( I think it was Scorched Earth) Where they've relocated a group of people only to discover an alien ship on the other side of the planet already teraforming. The ship creates a human construct to interact with the characters and it plays them an example of the alien's music. The piece is mind-numbingly loud and garish and even the construct complains it doesn't sound pleasant - that it was created for the specific design of the aliens' ears.
J.J. wrote: "We don't even know an alien culture would appreciate what we consider music, no matter the genre or artist.There was an episode of Stargate ( I think it was Scorched Earth) Where they've relocate..."
My guess is all alien cultures will have some form of music, because there are certain concepts that are mathematically fundamental, and I would guess they would translate. (As an aside, I also compose music on the side, for my own amusement, so I have had to come to grips with some of the concepts.) I don't think volume would be a problem - they can always turn it down, or up. However, there is the question of taste. I don't like quite a bit of our music, and a certain piece by John Cage (in which only rests are on the page) is unlikely to appeal. There is the question of pace - their music may be played far faster or slower than ours, so ours would make little sense, and finally there is frequency - their sounds may lie predominantly outside our hearing range. So I doubt spending our music would help very much.
Ok, guys, now that a new launch to Proxima Centauri is about to happen, you might as well hurry up with suggestions what to load on a new ship. What would you propose to place onboard?Would it be a book written by your friend on Goodreads with 0.99 price tag and request to sign up on an email list? Or maybe a bottle of Chivas? Some carrot and stick? Your own idea?
You know, as small as memory storage has become in relation to the amount of data it can hold, we could almost put everything from our culture onto a flash drive (maybe not yet, but still...), send it off, and let the aliens decide what's important to them.
The approach of truly superior aliens that I have included in my SF novels is that a planet that could develop intelligent life forms should be left alone and protected until it develops adequate technology for interstellar travel, and in this case, interstellar means from star systems, e.g. Alpha Centauri, which is really three stars, would be considered as one. After all A and B come close enough together that it would compare with a journey to Saturn.
Tim wrote: "Ian wrote: The approach of truly superior aliens that I have included in my SF novels is that a planet that could develop intelligent life forms should be left alone and protected until it develops..."Yes, Gene Roddenberry created a great series. The difference between what I am advocating and the Star Trek philosophy is that in mine, until the society is coming to the point where it is thinking of developing interstellar probes, the society is left alone, absolutely. No ships or anything can go anywhere near detection range, i.e. that society must believe it is alone in the Universe until it has the chance to test the theory. For Star Trek, that would mean no episodes, other than with equal societies.
Actually, Prof. Lubin (who's worked with NASA and is behind the Breakthrough Starshit) and his colleague Travis Bradshears are doing this very thing. It's called Voices of Humanity:https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...
https://ksr-video.imgix.net/projects/...
Any new suggestions what to put into UPS or DHL or other courier package bound for another stellar system?
I tend to go along with Stephen Hawking. Whatever else we put there, we do not include our address.
Nik wrote: "Any new suggestions what to put into UPS or DHL or other courier package bound for another stellar system?"Probably wouldn't use Fedex...every time I hear about a delivery truck in a crash it's a Fedex truck...Just had one crash on the Beltline in South Raleigh a week or two ago.
What is an absolute must to represent the humanity in front of the aliens?
I don't think we should approach them at all, unless they turn up physically. As long as they don't know we are here, they can't do us any harm, and where we are now, I can't see how they could do us any good
There's also Breakthrough Message. It's the counterpart of Breakthrough Listen, the passive SETI. Basically, they are holding an international competition to decide what, if anything, we should tell aliens out there. Top prize is $1 million. One caveat, I think we can all agree on - no addresses or breakdown of our defenses! ;)https://breakthroughinitiatives.org/i...
I think the really good news about this is the chances of an alien picking up such a message are extremely low. If they were listening, that would probably be because they know a number of messages are being sent, because they know there is interstellar communication for other purposes, in which case if such messages were being sent nearby, we would have heard them. If everybody elects to listen continuously over a very long time, it is most likely to be because they have already embarked on interstellar travel, and they need to keep in contact with their various settlements and activities.
Matthew wrote: "There's also Breakthrough Message. It's the counterpart of Breakthrough Listen, the passive SETI. Basically, they are holding an international competition to decide what, if anything, we should tel..."This complements nicely this thread and offers an excellent monetary incentive, so guys if you have a message rather than objects feel free to share. I'm a little alien to most places anyway to appreciate -:)
Ian wrote: "I think the really good news about this is the chances of an alien picking up such a message are extremely low. ..."Pls, don't despair! -:)
Nik wrote: "NASA launched Voyager-1 bearing a Golden Record..."Hmm.
I'd make sure it didn't look like it was coming from this part of the Milky Way. Why? Too many reasons to go into here; suffice it to say if I'm not convinced in wishy-washy stereo-types of all-pervading good, peace and light, why would aliens?
Any entity out there must know that the top-dog has three main traits: cunning, murderous cunning and malicious cunning. Why would they let a potential menace loose on the galaxy? Why let them exist?
It's a fertile field. First Contact means winners and losers - losers lose everything.
If we're unable to make it to interstellar space without alien help will there be catches - like no terraforming, no colonising and no doing other cool stuff — controls essential in preserving the existing interstellar status quo, backed up by serious hardware? I'm certain some of our lot will think we could just waltz around poking our nose into wherever we want.
I have heard it put that human development has been manipulated, that alien technology is already loose on Earth, and that the protocols for contact have already been established. Man is prone to panic and, having read of and observed mental states, I do speculate on whether first contact could trigger pre-planned changes in human behaviour which we have no means of preventing.
My fictional first contact is more friendly than Terence's, but the problem is as far as contacting them, you don't know that will be the result. In my fiction,though, the aliens are not at all interested in helping us, and I can't see why they would, so on probability, if they will not help, then the only other possibility is they will hurt us, so based on the fact you can only lose, and the question is by how much, it makes no sense to advertise ourselves.
Ian wrote: "aliens are not at all interested in helping us, and I can't see why they would..."yup
:-)
Return to this:The reality is a weak, poorly defended people have popped a message into the ether saying: "We Are Here (just in case you missed our inane radio / TV transmissions)".
A humanocentic view 'there's no one else in the cosmos' so here's our time capsule for later' though reeking of self-importance is just about understandable. Some might say, once our answer arrives from space, the Voyager craft may be the only remaining records that we ever existed.
Not sure, it's only a narrow range of harm/friend modes. It might be disinterest or anything else..How can we be weak and poorly defended, if we have Trump, Putin, Macron, Trudeau and even Jong Un? -:)
Nik wrote: "a narrow range of harm/friend modes..."when you're on the same planet and most abide by similar rules of conduct and technology transfer isn't controlled and access from one side of the planet to the other is doable... and you're all essentially the same species and highly interdependent - the Kim's and Donald's must paddle the same boat.
Wind the clock back 260 years and the Dzungar genocide in Dzungaria (now Xinkiang) by the Chinese was just coming to an end. Go back 760 years and the Turco-Mongol hordes had just rounded up their change of the genetic map of Central Asia with the slaughter of of an estimated 1 million in Baghdad. I quote these because few know of them - all in the blink of an eye in galactic time. Any watching would surely draw their own conclusions, as I draw mine.
Glass half-empty? Yes, but given the age of the universe, the place ought to be throbbing with life. It isn't, so why? We can hardly be first given the levels of organic material that drifts to Earth. I'd put odds on something - maybe even an automatic process - checking for signs of technology, and then sending a gift; one that prevents rivals propagating. Technology is an enabler but while we figure out interstellar travel, we're vulnerable.
The Earth is a cradle, our activity is the baby alarm. What happens next? Do we rejoin the drifting organic material?
My argument is that for life you need (a) the materials to form life, (b) water, and (c) conditions on the planet suitable for life, i.e. it has to be in the habitable zone. Each of these is determined at three different times in the life of the system, the first two during stellar accretion and the second just after but before the T Tauri event that removes the accretion disk remains. We also need a rocky planet to get the ribose needed for RNA.The first of these needs a minimum temperature that is unclear, but at least 1100 degrees C, and Earth was at least 1500 degrees C. Mars would have been about 1250 - 1300 degrees C, and we don't know whether that was good enough. (The requirement is to get reduced nitrogen, and Mars is very short of nitrogen in its atmosphere, but there may be far more trapped below the surface.)
The second needs temperatures below (my guess here) 200 degrees C because we have to accrete water while accreting the planet. We know about the habitable zone.
If we get that far, we see the only chances are around G type stars and heavy K stars. And to keep the planetary size down, the T Tauri event must happen within about 1 My of stellar accretion (LkCa 15b is about 5 times bigger than Jupiter and three times further away from the same-sized star, and the star is only 2 - 3 My old, with the T Tauri event yet to occur. In some stars it takes up to 30 My.) The net result is that suitable planets will be well spaced apart, so meeting different civilisations may be extremely rare. Note that having life does not mean having a civilisation. We have had life for about 3 Gy at least, and civilisation for about 8,000 y.
Terence wrote: "The Earth is a cradle, our activity is the baby alarm. What happens next? Do we rejoin the drifting organic material? ..."We can also be a department in an intergalactic zoo, bearing an "Organic Idiots" sign.
Or we can be an experiment of the 5-th grade student in God's school, failing miserably with messy performance world creation subject and about to scrap it after receiving his/her/its deserved, low grade. -:)
Anyhow, I'm also for a cautious approach
Nik wrote: "Terence wrote: "The Earth is a cradle, our activity is the baby alarm. What happens next? Do we rejoin the drifting organic material? ..."We can also be a department in an intergalactic zoo, bear..."
I guess we'll find out when Voyager hits the edge of the aquarium tank :D
J.J. wrote: "Nik wrote: "Terence wrote: "I guess we'll find out when Voyager hits the edge of the aquarium tank..."There have been some stories written from the interesting view that the laws of physics are local. The principle I would go with is test each cosmological theory to absurdity. So given Big Bang and efforts to determine age etc, we ought to be looking at one spot. If not, why not? The answer might well be along the lines of Big Bang isn't what we believe it to be.
We use analogy to explain observations but, like the Ancient Greeks, have taken to ascribing independent existence to the descriptive terms we use...
Ussher calculated the age of the Earth from the observations held within the Torah... His Earth, a young Earth, begins 1300 years after urban societies appeared in Mesopotamia; 1500 years after the waters of the Mediterranean finally breached the Bosphorus to flood the coastal communities of the Black Sea; 70,000 years after the Toba event. Ussher’s conclusions weren’t supported by advances in geology.
Orthodoxy thrives in science, even in geology. The uniformitarians (an inspiration for Darwin) hypothesized a longer chronology. But as gradualists, they rejected continental drift and the later plate tectonics. Until the 1960’s some answers couldn’t be right, despite the evidence.
What changes are opinions, which of course is why science fluctuates wildly...
As a scientist, Im would argue that science doe snot "fluctuate wildly". Of course some theories are wrong, and the errors are uncovered. However, it is true that orthodoxy thrives - in the sense outlined by Thomas Kuhn. Once a paradigm gets accepted, it is extremely difficult to dislodge it.
Terence wrote: "J.J. wrote: "Nik wrote: "Terence wrote: "I guess we'll find out when Voyager hits the edge of the aquarium tank..."There have been some stories written from the interesting view that the laws of ..."
While I believe in a universe ruled by science over a god, I do understand that you can't use science as evidence in the science vs. religion debate. The strange thing that's hard for a lot of people to get their heads around is that if there is a god controlling the universe, all-knowing and all-powerful, then it is conceivable the "laws" of science and all the "scientific evidence" used in debates such as creationism vs. evolution are a fiction created by that god to fool us or to test us or to whatever. We can take measurements and observations that lead us to believe the universe is ruled by certain laws, but what if that god snaps his fingers tomorrow and changes the laws...even if just enough to mess with all the readings and observations scientists have made? We have the fossil record showing us what occupied Earth before us, but what if god really did place that fossil record there.
It might sound strange, but science is as much a faith-based entity as religion because we have to trust that what we can observe, measure and record actually exists as we observe it, measure it and record it.
I disagree with the "as much". Is not trusting what you can observe better than trusting what you cannot observe?That does not mean religion is wrong. My view is that science says absolutely nothing about religion, and religion should not say anything about science because they will get it wrong. The scientist would probably say that God merely put down the laws and then let the Universe get on with the details.
I think religion mostly teaches to obey and put up with whatever to supposedly get the reward in the later stage. If nothing happens, it's the biggest con.. Intolerance towards knowledge, doubt or other beliefs is the major cause of billions of victims along the centuries, which might not have been compensated in the afterlife.Yet, I believe anyone can believe in whatever, but would strongly oppose spreading those beliefs on me...
Ian wrote: "I disagree with the "as much". Is not trusting what you can observe better than trusting what you cannot observe?That does not mean religion is wrong. My view is that science says absolutely noth..."
I would agree. Science does have that leg up, but I play devil's advocate and point out that you have to believe what you observe is real. Think about those optical illusion things where some people can see (ie. observe) one thing while others see another. What if we could look behind the scientific foundation we believe rules the universe and find it's an illusion, that there is another foundation masked by the one we thought was real.
This is sort of the basis for a story idea in my head I haven't yet developed into something workable where a scientific team makes a long-distance trek to establish a base on a habitable but supposedly empty world. When they get there, they find there is a settlement of god-like aliens. They claim to be friendly and agree to let the humans occupy a part of the world their not using, but their abilities unnerve the humans and they get a little antagonistic. The aliens use their abilities to subdue the humans without trying to harm them, and over the course of the strange adventure, the humans slowly realize they can master the same abilities as the aliens, and in a final earth-shattering moment, the aliens reveal that the universe is ruled on belief. The scientists believe in science, so the universe runs on science, but in a day when religion was the predominant belief, there was a "God" who controlled the universe on his own. Conflicting beliefs don't necessarily cancel each other out, why the aliens can exist in a universe where their magical powers exist while the natural laws of the scientists still hold power...as the humans begin to accept the universe can be ruled in the way the aliens believe, they begin to believe it and hence they can obtain and control the same power.
Nik wrote: "I think religion mostly teaches to obey and put up with whatever to supposedly get the reward in the later stage. If nothing happens, it's the biggest con.. Intolerance towards knowledge, doubt or ..."I'll enter the argument of religion in its purest vs. organized religion. Fundamentally, religion is a means to get people to conform to a certain moral code, one that's "best" for society. If you take the 10 Commandments for an example, it is a pretty good guide for living one's life...not killing, not stealing, not stealing someone's wife...
Take many of the stories in both the New and Old Testament, and they boil down to social parables teaching people to live moral and just lives. Maybe the afterlife portion is the carrot to convince people it's worth living this life. If our actions really don't have any permanent consequences, then why should we be good to our neighbor and all that? If religion offers the "carrot," than government is the "stick." Ancient cultures might cut off your hand or even execute you for stealing, for example. But if we're increasingly moving away from harsh punishments, is there any real incentive to live a just life? If you spend a short time in jail and end up back in society for stealing, is that much of a deterrent for some people? If the only punishment for breaking up a marriage is public shame, then why think twice about it when you could just move away and escape that shame?
I think your idea rests on the promising concept, J.J.As of religion - the commandments are nice and helpful, but, as far as I'm aware according to Testaments themselves, 25 or so generations lived without them until Moses and/or God codified what was accepted anyway.
Besides, religion teaches to accept the fate and that the God would reward virtuous and punish sinful, but often we see that the latter prosper the most while the former suffer. Sometimes kinda stupid to waste a life in expectation of something better thereafter. Therefore, in my opinion at least, religion combines false and true statements, but carries an ultimately wrong message of passivity and subordination, alleging that superior powers will set the things right.
Sure, to support a cohesive community a set of rules is required with incentives and punishments for their observance/breach respectively, but these do not have to be based on mystique and something ephemeral. Education of good and wrong is more important in my opinion than doctrines.
Ah, the old argument, are we? Is it all an illusion? Are we living in some sort of hologram? I like Descarte's answer - "I think, therefore I am." If I accept that I am, then I have to accept that what I observe is real, provided I limit it to what I observe as opposed to what I interpret from what I observe. The point is, real tends to be defined as what I can observe, taking "observe" to its deeper meaning. The optical illusion is real - it is a real illusion. The observer may not correctly deduce what is going on, but that does not deny the reality of the signal the observer receives. The definition is, of course, circular, but you cannot define terms that mean anything to someone else unless everyone can relate to them, which means they have to be related to observables.
J.J. wrote: "Terence wrote: "J.J. wrote: "Nik wrote: "Terence wrote: "I guess we'll find out when Voyager hits the edge of the aquarium tank..."
you can't use science as evidence in the science vs. religion debate..."
By veering wildly I referred to speculative science (ie not applied technology). Geology was one.
Take astronomy. The view 'we can't find planets out there' easily became 'there are no planets'... until the first observed exo-planets.
A hypothesis becomes orthodoxy becomes a pedantic, rule based doctrine; belief systems become dogma... 'we believe only what can be proved' becomes 'if it can't be proved it's nonsense'.
In this day and age (paradoxically) enforcement is a much more efficient process. Scientists observe this in religion... :-).
Where does this go? The popular idea of God can be debunked just as easily as the concept of a politician without at least one of the seven deadly sins. On the other hand, the self belief that powers humanocentrism
we did everything by ourselves, us, we are our own bootstraptoo often fills in the cosmological gaps in our understanding with Earth at the centre, man at the heart of that, and our stewardship of this planet morphed into 'man shall have a jolly good time' (hence the current bun-fight for dwindling resources).
My background is business. I've read SF and Fantasy quite heavily. One observation I'd make is that dogma and orthodoxy is a human trait. Subtracting this isn't easy as it means destroying carefully nurtured belief systems - who wants to be re-educated?
I've written elsewhere a view proposing that it costs little to concede the possibility of a Creator. My main motive is addressing the thick strand of humanocentrism. This leads to strange places: contrasting evolution with by design, how we arrive at the idea of God. I've an accumulation of Eastern mysticism and philosophical notions that needs a good clean out.
I disagree with 'we can't find planets out there' easily became 'there are no planets'..
There was never a declaration that there were no planets out there, but there were assertions that people who found them were wrong. I recall in the 1980s seeing a book that disputed an earlier claim that there was a planet around Epsilon eridani, the claim being made based on Doppler measurements. The argument was the spectrum was too noisy, and they were imagining things. Interestingly, we now believe there is such a planet, and its semimajor axis is almost the same as in the original claim, so maybe these earlier guys should get the credit for what they saw. They won't, of course, and I cannot refind the article so I can't give you a link, and anyway this was prior to links, and not everything has been back-catalogued for the web.
Terence wrote: "J.J. wrote: "Terence wrote: "J.J. wrote: "Nik wrote: "Terence wrote: "I guess we'll find out when Voyager hits the edge of the aquarium tank..."
you can't use science as evidence in the science v..."
This really isn't the place to advertise, friend. People are trying to have an open discussion. If you want to promote your books, there are plenty of threads for that :)
Incidentally, there was never a claim by astronomers that there were no planets out there. Long before the first exoplanets were discovered in 1992, the astronomical community maintained that most star systems would have a system of planets. While the evidence was lacking, it made scientific sense - much like the existence of dark matter and dark energy.
Ian wrote: "I disagree with there are no planets..."
Yes, that was provocative. Astronomy is significantly older than the West and it took until the C16th to move from geocentrism to heliocentrism. Perhaps I put orthodoxy into the mouths of those not ready to concede ground to changes in science. :-)
It wasn't a painless transition and having said that, I have had that view propounded to me.
I can assure you that the notion of exo-planets long appealed to my preconceptions and I was exceedingly happy at the identification of the first.
What items would you exhibit for aliens? And what message would you want to convey: to intimidate them, mislead, please, amuse, attract, etc?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager...
If you were to compose a new GR, what three/five items what would you include?
An example of multiple - choice answers:
1. Brad Pitt's acting in Troy
2. Conchita Wurst winning Eurovision
3. A can of coke
4. iPhone 6+