Cosmic Comprehension

[dannyd]

Do you think that humans are more or less ignorant regarding the the true nature of space and time than an ant is regarding the true nature of the ground (the spherical earth) it is dwelling on/in?

 

[harmonicaman]

I would argue that the ant knows more. The ant understands everthing it needs too know about the true nature of space and time to excell in it's ecological niche. <br /><br />Humans, OTOH, need to learn a lot more about the true nature of space and time because they they are trying to move beyond their ecological niche.

 

[derekmcd]

I wouldn't say the ant know more when it comes to the scope of knowledge. I would definately support that the ant is more efficient. We humans don't truely know how vast the universe is, but we have a basic comprehension beyond what we can travel and see. That ant knows nothing outside it's travels. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[dannyd]

I liked your answers to my half-ass question - thanks. What bothers me is suggested by the oft-used quote in these forums, "The truth is not only stranger than we imagine - it is stranger than we can imagine."<br /><br />As an agnostic of more than a few decades I cannot help but be flustered and depressed at spending these fleeting years in wonder and awe, and then, if the mind dissolves at death as I sadly suspect it does, never being privy to the deep truths of our "reality." Perhaps the lowly instinctual ant is to be envied? -dannyd

 

[qso1]

stevehw33: <br />ants have no knowledge or data base of any kind. their behaviors are instinctual, alone... <br /><br />Me: <br />IMO, we really don't know the level of intelligence any creature besides us possesses. Ants act in social groups, and have at least enough awareness to be one of the few species to build their own dwellings which requires data processing albiet at the lowest percieved by us, level. <br /><br />Due to our lack of knowledge in this area, the idea that either species is more aware than the other is one that cannot be ever known. The vast majority of people its often said, cannot possibly comprehend the vast distances that are a part of the Universe. We know its there, we know its big, and we know something of its structure and chemistry. <br /><br />Ants know what surround them is big and there, but maybe not know chemistry and structure because they have no tools to gain that knowledge as far as we can determine...it may simply be that they know in a way foreign to us. And maybe, or probably they don't know at all. But until we can communicate with other creatures, we will never know how intelligent and self aware they may really be. What we call instinct may well be evidence of that self awareness. We call it instinct because we don't know enough about it to call it anything else. <br /><br />If an ant detects a predator, it seems to be self aware enough to know its butts in trouble. We see that as instinct, but instinct is such a general term.<br /><br />To answer the question posed by this thread, its unanswerable beyond opinion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[rfoshaug]

I agree with that, qso1. If a dog looks happy and wags its tail to me, I like to think that it actually is happy and aware of it. But it could well be just an instinct to look happy to increase its chances of receiving cheese - which it doesn't really want, but it's instincts tell it that cheese is a good thing.<br /><br />It's the same with other people. Seen from my point of view, I can't prove or disprove whether other humans are aware or if they just do the things they do out of instinct.<br /><br /><br />As for the original topic - whether we have any clue as to how the universe actually is - i would say a definite maybe.<br /><br />We already know that the universe is far larger and contains more stars than we can possibly imagine. I played around in the excellent star simulation program Celestia the other day. I flew my virtual spaceship through myriads of small points. The points looked like small snowflakes rushing towards me. Then I zoomed out and found that all those points really only were in a small sphere around the Sun (since this program uses real star positions, only stars of a certain magnitude seen from the sun are in it). All these stars were just a fraction of the stars in the galaxy, and our galaxy is just one of billions.<br /><br />We estimate that the Milky Way contains about 400 billion stars, that's 400,000,000,000 stars. This we know, but we can't really comprehend it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff9900">----------------------------------</font></p><p><font color="#ff9900">My minds have many opinions</font></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Celestia is a great program. Have you searched any of the exoplanet stars? Particularly the ones in which the first exoplanets were found such as 51pegasi or Upsilon Andromedae? The exoworlds discovered so far are simulated as well. Going to Andromeda and looking back is something that can give one an even better perspective awareness of the very topic covered here.<br /><br />I had the program until my computer crashed and I went to get it again but the website changed and it wouldn't load after I downloaded it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>