[ExI] No black holes with singularities?

BillK pharos at gmail.com
Sun Jan 18 22:49:47 UTC 2015


On 18 January 2015 at 22:35, Bryan Bishop wrote:
> I don't think that's the right question to be asking. When looking at
> distant stars and galaxies and contemplating astrophysics, we should not
> pick a default assumption one way or the other as to whether the phenomena
> is "natural" or "artificial", since this may corrupt our understanding of
> astrophysics and incorporate wrong data, among other reasons. Additionally,
> there may be no difference between the two anyway...


That's not how science works. There is still much that science doesn't
know about the universe. So we have to assume that a strange signal or
spectrum is natural. That way leads science to make new discoveries
about all the strange stuff that nature gets up to.

A scientist that finds a signal that he doesn't understand and uses
'LGM' as the explanation won't have much of a career.


> I suspect that the way
> to identify things that we could approximately call life would be to pay
> close attention to thermodynamics and the criteria for what counts as life.
> See page 215 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.1648.pdf but relevant context starts
> on page 203. Speaking of which, I am a little confused as to how I have not
> already read Freitas' Xenology book ( http://www.xenology.info/Xeno.htm
> table of contents).
>

Yes, no problem with that. Kepler is already looking for earth-like planets.

BillK



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list