ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 16th March 2018, 12:04 PM   #241
mifune
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 144
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Remember this gem, Hellbound?

Quote:
The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is not even a theory or hypothesis at all, but an interpretation...akin to a thought experiment, and isn't generally accepted except among those who aren't in the field.
"As cutting-edge experiments display ever more extreme forms of non-classical behavior, the prevailing view on the interpretation of quantum mechanics appears to be gradually changing. A (highly unscientific) poll taken at the 1997 UMBC quantum mechanics workshop gave the once all-dominant Copenhagen interpretation less than half of the votes. The Many Worlds interpretation (MWI) scored second, comfortably ahead of the Consistent Histories and Bohm interpretations."
https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9709032
(Max Tegmark)

"Sadly, most people who object to EQM do so for the silly reasons, not for the serious ones. But even given the real challenges of the preferred-basis issue and the probability issue, I think EQM is way ahead of any proposed alternative."
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/...bably-correct/

That's Sean Carroll, by the way.

You want to retract that here or in the other thread?

what am I missing? The non scientific poll showed that the largest consensus among quantum physicists was still the Copenhagen interpretation right?



Besides, why are you derailing this?

You were asked some very to the point questions, why are you ignoring them??
mifune is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2018, 12:08 PM   #242
mifune
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 144
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Let's test Fudbucker's Theory, shall we?

Fudbucker's Theory (FT) states that, if we have no information whatsoever on the probability of an event, its probability is 0.5. Let us assume that this is what we normally understand by the term "probability," specifically that it behaves mathematically like any other probability.

We have no information on whether aliens have visited Earth. By FT, P(aliens)=0.5; therefore, P(~aliens), the probability that no aliens have visited Earth, is also 0.5.

We have no information on whether Klingons have visited Earth. Therefore, by FT, P(~Klingons)=0.5.
We have no information on whether Vogons have visited Earth. Therefore, by FT, P(~Vogons)=0.5. [1]
We have no information on whether Goa'uld have visited Earth. Therefore, by FT, P(~Goa'uld)=0.5.
We have no information on whether Cylons have visited Earth. Therefore, by FT, P(~Cylons)=0.5.

Klingons, Vogons, Goa'uld and Cylons are all aliens. Therefore, the probability that no aliens have visited Earth is at most P(~Klingons)*P(~Vogons)*P(Goa'uld)*P(Cylons) = 0.0625.

Conclusion: 0.5 < 0.0625.

Therefore Fudbucker's Theory is incorrect.

(Add another half-dozen alien species and we're up to a 99.9% chance that aliens have visited Earth, based solely on Fudbucker's Theory and the fact that we have no information on whether any aliens have visited Earth.)

Dave

[1] Actually, it hasn't been demolished, so they've probably not visited.
Fudbucker - please address this post, it seems to conclusively destroy the validity of your numbers.
mifune is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2018, 12:09 PM   #243
mifune
Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 144
Originally Posted by mifune View Post
That isn't how conditional probability works. You have a bunch of unknowable probabilities and you just arbitrarily pull numbers out of nowhere to assign to them. That cannot give you a meaningful result.

By your own mangled calculations (your conditions are not related in the way you say they are, and you use novel notation) your result of P(H/E)=0.47 is obviously only 'true' where you assume the conditional probabilities of P(H)/P(E)/P(E/H) that give you that result. But that is NOT how conditional probability works. Those other values you feed into the analysis have to be known values. This is pretty basic stuff, statistics is a lot more difficult than just looking up equations, you have to understand what the equations mean.

If you think your interpretation of Bayes theorem is valid I challenge you to find any professional statistician who agrees you can just arbitrarily assign values for unknown variables, or that 0.5 (or 0.47) is a valid way to assign unknown values in a Bayesian analysis.

Fudbucker, please address these points.
mifune is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2018, 12:09 PM   #244
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 12,398
Sorry for the derail there. And yes, I'd like to see an address of Dave Roger's and mifune's comments as well.
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2018, 01:44 PM   #245
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,038
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
Sorry for the derail there. And yes, I'd like to see an address of Dave Roger's and mifune's comments as well.
What would be the point? I wouldn't convince any of you, and most of you can't grasp basic epistemology. Comparing aliens to leprechauns? Really? We've spent a lot of money looking for the former, and none looking for the latter. Why is that? Hmmmmm, could they be categorically different things?

Carry on if you like, but I'm bored with this thread now.
Fudbucker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2018, 01:50 PM   #246
Pacal
Muse
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 936
Actually one of the things I find amusing is the notion that a claim for which we have no evidence has a 50% probability of being true. That is not true. We can discuss and make judgements of the probability of a claim based on our knowledge of how the world operates and of course the rules of logic.

Thus the claim that I saw three Pink Unicorns in my driveway last Tuesday does not have a 50% likelihood of being true because we have no evidence on the matter except my say so.

In the case of UFOs visiting us know and in the past we have out knowledge of stellar distances, the dangerous environment of space and the vast technical problems of travel between the stars to give us a notion of probability, but the truly big problem with the idea is the lack of evidence found on Earth for such an idea.

Hand waving those problems away on the basis that that the Aliens would somehow hide from us and other just so like stories is fantasy. The bottom line is that the chances of Aliens having visited us now or in the past are almost certainly less than 50%.

Last edited by Pacal; 16th March 2018 at 01:52 PM.
Pacal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2018, 01:53 PM   #247
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 12,398
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
What would be the point? I wouldn't convince any of you, and most of you can't grasp basic epistemology. Comparing aliens to leprechauns? Really? We've spent a lot of money looking for the former, and none looking for the latter. Why is that? Hmmmmm, could they be categorically different things?

Carry on if you like, but I'm bored with this thread now.
Well, first, there has been money spent looking for leprechauns, btu that's neither here nor there.

Second, the comparison was leprechauns to the idea of interacting universes, because both have the same amount of evidence: hearsay on the for side, and contradiction of known theory on the other side. So there's lying.

Third, if you continuously fail to convince anyone, ever, after repeated trying, perhaps the problem isn't with everyone else?

Last edited by Hellbound; 16th March 2018 at 01:55 PM.
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2018, 02:16 PM   #248
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,685
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
Sorry for the derail there. And yes, I'd like to see an address of Dave Roger's and mifune's comments as well.
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
What would be the point?
To see if you're actually right or as wrong as you appear. You apparently cannot refute it and you know it, thus your sudden boredom.
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2018, 06:03 PM   #249
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,076
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
What would be the point? I wouldn't convince any of you, and most of you can't grasp basic epistemology. Comparing aliens to leprechauns? Really? We've spent a lot of money looking for the former, and none looking for the latter. Why is that? Hmmmmm, could they be categorically different things?

Carry on if you like, but I'm bored with this thread now.
Leprechauns are protected by the EU in Carlingford under a 2009 E.U. Habitats Directive.

As of if this writings, ET's are not protected by the EU.

Should add that this doesn't make either any more real.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2018, 06:44 AM   #250
Kings Full
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Texas
Posts: 122
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post

Carry on if you like, but I'm bored with this thread now.
__________________
I decided to take the train to work one day and as luck would have it I sat across from a stunningly beautiful young Indonesian girl. I kept saying to myself, please don't get an erection, please don't get an erection.... but she did!
Kings Full is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2018, 01:15 AM   #251
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 10,775
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
You return to find recognizably goat-like creatures, but their milk is toxic, or is produced in minuscule amounts of no use to you, or is no longer produced at all. Because your resilient redundant adaptive self-replicating machines have evolved, as resilient adaptive self-replicating machines are wont do do.
Sure, that's all possible. On the other hand looking at the history of mammals I think there's a good chance that after 10,000 years they will still be producing drink that's drinkable by humans.

Quote:
That's assuming the goat population has survived, because the island's environment has remained benign to them the entire time.

But what if you're concerned that the island might be subject to tsunami or storm surge or volcanic eruption or extreme climate change or perhaps some threat you didn't even know about, during those 10,000 years?
Did you not read the part of my post where I mentioned that? Yes, it's possible that the goats will die out in 10,000 years. It's also quite possible that they won't.

Quote:
You could choose machines that are by nature even more adaptive and resilient (a type of insect or bacteria instead of goat, perhaps), or choose machines intelligent enough to anticipate and respond to threats with technology of their own. But neither of those measures make your nice celebratory glass of milk more likely 10,000 years from now. In the first case, they're even more likely to evolve away from expending energy producing a substance they themselves don't need. In the second case, they're likely to point weapons at you and tell you to **** off when you come to collect "your" milk.

Now, if all you want to do is get some kind of functioning "machinery" to another star system a long time in the future, those issues won't stand in your way. But if you want that machinery to do something in particular, something you want or plan for it to do, when it gets there, such as to provide milk upon request, or resuscitate deep-frozen colonists, or terraform a planet to your own liking, or send back data, or develop new interstellar colony missions of its own, that kind of "machine" might not serve you so well.
Yes, if we have some sort of self-replicating machinery we need to take into account it's propensity to evolve and thus to arrange things in such a way that we'd expect that evolution to happen such that it will still be doing what we want it to do at the end of that time period. I see no reason to believe that's impossible.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov

Last edited by Roboramma; 22nd March 2018 at 01:26 AM.
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2018, 01:25 AM   #252
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 10,775
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
The goat-based machine does require a large and uninterrupted supply of solar power to run for 10,000 years. It won't restart if the power supply is removed for more than a few days.
I agree that that's a very important issue. There are seeds that can germinate after thousands of years (I think that's true), but that's after being in relatively inert environments. I think you are right that it would require a power source.

Quote:
Hypothetically a spacecraft could reactivate after a million inert years, when it got close enough to a star to power up. But there would be no question of its correcting its course or attitude during those million years, nor even of running a clock to know what year it awoke in, unless perhaps it was possible to extract enough energy from starlight but then those big solar panels would be awfully vulnerable to dust impacts.
I consider fusion to be a more likely power source than starlight and it might be possible to carry enough fuel even for a 10,000 year journey. But then we need a fusion reactor that can be maintained for 10,000 years. I think that's a difficult task to say the least, but again self repair, redundancy, and perhaps even replication might be necessary.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2018, 01:32 AM   #253
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 10,775
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Quote:
I don't see how it's not a machine in the sense being used here. Perhaps you could explain that important distinction.
Never mind. Myriad put it far far better than I ever could.
I found Myriad's post quite reasonable and clearly stated, though I disagree with his conclusions.

On the other hand at no point does he advance an argument that a tree or a goat, or even a population of goats, isn't a machine. So I find it odd that you think his post makes that argument, which he doesn't make, better than you ever could.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2018, 10:10 PM   #254
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,685
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
I found Myriad's post quite reasonable and clearly stated, though I disagree with his conclusions.

On the other hand at no point does he advance an argument that a tree or a goat, or even a population of goats, isn't a machine. So I find it odd that you think his post makes that argument, which he doesn't make, better than you ever could.
Because I never bloody said that a tree or a goat or even a population of goats isn't a machine. Apparently you aren't reading my responses or at least, clearly enough at this point.
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2018, 12:12 AM   #255
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 10,775
Okay. Can you then explain what you meant by the following?

Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
You're playing fast and loose with the definition of 'machine' which you don't need to make your point, so I'm not sure why you're confusing the issue by doing so.

First a tree is a 'machine' and then a goat herd is also a 'machine.' Not in the sense that is being used here, so that's why it was thought fit to mention it explicitly.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2018, 08:36 AM   #256
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,685
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Okay. Can you then explain what you meant by the following?
I thought I had. 'Machine' in the sense of this thread is essentially a human-made one, not simply a pre-existing biological or organizational one. I mean, that's really it.

The point I think being attempted here is to say that a machine [read: made by human kind] wouldn't last the required times necessary for intergalactic travel. An organized group of organisms could possibly make it, which is what I understand your argument to be.

Which is fine and understandable. Humans themselves could be that organizational group, too. As in generational spaceships. But what was being discussed was human-made machines and that's why I just pointed out the differences ironically to help overall understandability.

I wasn't denying your POV or what you were saying at all. I wasn't arguing with you; I am saying that you took the original argument of [human-made] machine and changed up the definition of 'machine' in order to argue against what was being said.
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2018, 06:55 PM   #257
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 10,775
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
I thought I had. 'Machine' in the sense of this thread is essentially a human-made one, not simply a pre-existing biological or organizational one. I mean, that's really it.

The point I think being attempted here is to say that a machine [read: made by human kind] wouldn't last the required times necessary for intergalactic travel. An organized group of organisms could possibly make it, which is what I understand your argument to be.
That's close to what I'm saying. To be more clear, I'm suggesting that we could build machines make use of some of the aspects of biological systems that allow them to persist through thousands of years. The fact that doing so is possible is shown by the fact that biological systems accomplish it. Whether or not it's possible in the much more severe environment of interstellar space, particularly at interstellar velocities, is a different question. But so far no one has even agreed about the first question and at least one poster suggested that making machines that can continue working for thousands of years is impossible, or at least insurmountably difficult.

I simply made the point that making machines that can continue working for thousands of years must be possible because, after all, if it's possible for a tree it's possible for a manmade object, though it may be that the manmade machine may need to make use of many of the same principles as are made use of by the tree.

Quote:
Which is fine and understandable. Humans themselves could be that organizational group, too. As in generational spaceships. But what was being discussed was human-made machines and that's why I just pointed out the differences ironically to help overall understandability.

I wasn't denying your POV or what you were saying at all. I wasn't arguing with you; I am saying that you took the original argument of [human-made] machine and changed up the definition of 'machine' in order to argue against what was being said.
I guess the issue for me is that we aren't currently able to make machines as advanced as biological systems. A tree is basically advanced nanotechnology. We can't build that today and so manmade machines currently look very different from biology. But both are just assemblages of atoms in particular patterns and there's no reason that with enough progress we can't develop technology that works in similar ways to biology. So my analogy with a tree really was meant to be talking about a machine, but one that works similarly to a tree at least in some ways (the ways that allow it to continue to function for thousands of years).
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2018, 07:54 PM   #258
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,685
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
That's close to what I'm saying. To be more clear, I'm suggesting that we could build machines make use of some of the aspects of biological systems that allow them to persist through thousands of years. The fact that doing so is possible is shown by the fact that biological systems accomplish it. Whether or not it's possible in the much more severe environment of interstellar space, particularly at interstellar velocities, is a different question. But so far no one has even agreed about the first question and at least one poster suggested that making machines that can continue working for thousands of years is impossible, or at least insurmountably difficult.

I simply made the point that making machines that can continue working for thousands of years must be possible because, after all, if it's possible for a tree it's possible for a manmade object, though it may be that the manmade machine may need to make use of many of the same principles as are made use of by the tree.



I guess the issue for me is that we aren't currently able to make machines as advanced as biological systems. A tree is basically advanced nanotechnology. We can't build that today and so manmade machines currently look very different from biology. But both are just assemblages of atoms in particular patterns and there's no reason that with enough progress we can't develop technology that works in similar ways to biology. So my analogy with a tree really was meant to be talking about a machine, but one that works similarly to a tree at least in some ways (the ways that allow it to continue to function for thousands of years).
Yeah, I think you're making great points and I think you're spot on with developing human-made machines more like the evolutionary biological ones in order to have anything like success in those time frames.

BTW, nanomachines would totally rock just on principle and they're looking more and more feasible as time goes on.
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2018, 02:13 AM   #259
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 10,775
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post

BTW, nanomachines would totally rock just on principle and they're looking more and more feasible as time goes on.
Agreed.

I actually sort of see some modern biotechnology as being a form of nanotechnology already.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2018, 02:44 PM   #260
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,685
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Agreed.

I actually sort of see some modern biotechnology as being a form of nanotechnology already.
Do you have any interesting examples you could share? I'd love to see some because, as I said, it is a totally rockin' field of exploration.
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2018, 05:42 PM   #261
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,406
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
at least one poster suggested that making machines that can continue working for thousands of years is impossible, or at least insurmountably difficult.
What I posted:

Quote:
Even then we presently cannot make a machine (nor are we trying) that will last the centuries needed to travel such distances.
We aren't trying to do that as far as I know all spaceship are designed presently to have a certain lifetime then are to be abandoned. Biological systems might be one way to do it. Another would be to send enough raw materials along so that a machine/AI would build another such machine/make spare parts on a continuous basis.
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2018, 09:07 PM   #262
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 10,775
Looking back over the thread I may have misread you and a couple of other posters. If people are only making the point that interstellar travel is an incredibly difficult challenge, I don't have any argument with that.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2018, 09:10 PM   #263
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 10,775
Originally Posted by The Norseman View Post
Do you have any interesting examples you could share? I'd love to see some because, as I said, it is a totally rockin' field of exploration.
George Church had some interesting examples (things like algae or bacteria that produce chemicals for industrial, and maybe medical?, uses, but other things as well) in his book Regenesis, but I read it a few months ago and lent it to a friend so I'm having a hard time remembering specifically.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2018, 11:20 PM   #264
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,685
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
George Church had some interesting examples (things like algae or bacteria that produce chemicals for industrial, and maybe medical?, uses, but other things as well) in his book Regenesis, but I read it a few months ago and lent it to a friend so I'm having a hard time remembering specifically.
That's enough for me to find it, thanks!
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2018, 07:47 AM   #265
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 27,852
CRISPR, and gene therapy as virus payload.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2018, 11:17 AM   #266
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
The Norseman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,685
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
CRISPR, and gene therapy as virus payload.
Awesome, thank you!
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:39 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.