Why the universe has to be so big?

The proposal was to confer some human right on some of the great apes. Not to think of them as human but to recognise that they deserve to be treated like they were.
Problem
They are not

I not saying this is a slippery slope effect but frequently issues like this streach well over the intended intent

I would not expect what I am about to say to be common place (at least I hope not) but I would bet some nutter with a lawyer behind would try to marry a ape

Would that get to the supreme Court?

Speculate it is allowed. Where would that leave religious persons who believe apes are "different" in the religious sense ie they don't have souls?

We for sure a branch of the ape limb and I would not be surprised if with a little gene manipulation offspring could be produced. Would a ape / human marriage be able to access IVF?

If you think that would be weird I recall just recently a woman married a bridge

Would marrying a ape be a step up from that?

Huey Dewey and Louie want coffee

:)
 
Last edited:
Problem
They are not
Agree.

I would suggest Boris' statement should more accurately be:

The proposal was to confer some sentiential right on some of the great apes. Not to think of them as human but to recognise that they deserve to be treated as similarly sentient.


You can also use the word "person". Humans can only ever be humans, but a person is a holder of some rights, whether human or not.
 
Last edited:
The point is Dave because we have the vocal evolution , we have become so far above our ancesters , that they , our ancesters don't , and could not ever know or understand how far above them we are .
We are proof that apes have the capacity to evolve complex communication. After all, it happened at least once.
 
We are proof that apes have the capacity to evolve complex communication. After all, it happened at least once.
Well sure, but they also have the capacity to evolve flight. If you give them long enough, and their evolution goes that way.

We don't know that the capacity for vocal language was gained before H. Sapiens split from our common ancestors.
 
We don't know that the capacity for vocal language was gained before H. Sapiens split from our common ancestors.

Can't say I know either but I did read something about vocal cords in apes are to low for speech as well as while the tongue is used extensively in human speech it not used in ape vocalization

:)
 
Agree.

I would suggest Boris' statement should more accurately be:

The proposal was to confer some sentiential right on some of the great apes. Not to think of them as human but to recognise that they deserve to be treated as similarly sentient.


You can also use the word "person". Humans can only ever be humans, but a person is a holder of some rights, whether human or not.

Not sure of how, percentage wise, sentient could be calculated, even if it can

I understand the mental age of ape (I think ape or chimp) is about equal to a 5 year old child

One of the test was to give the ape, and separately a child, a choice between two hands of bananas. One has 5 the other 3. Which ever is picked the opposite is given. At about 5 the child works out If I pick the 3 I will get the 5

The ape continues to pick the 5 and only getting the 3

Sure make laws not to keep in captivity and such but that's long short of some sort of personhood

:)
 
Not sure of how, percentage wise, sentient could be calculated, even if it can
It's more about self-awareness. The ability to conceive of a "me".

Best test I've heard of so far is if one can recognize onesself in a mirror.

Dogs don't, birds don't.
Dolphins can, apes can.

What they do is this:
- collect a bunch in one enclosure
- place a mirror in the their enclosure and let them get used to it (looking into a mirror is not in-itself a sign that they recognize the reflection is them)
- place marks on the forehead of random subjects where they cant see it

Animals that have a sense of self will try to determine if they, like their friends, have a mark. To do this, they seek out the mirror and try to see if their own forehead has a mark.
 
Last edited:
Best test I've heard of so far is if one can recognize onesself in a mirror
Great test and agree self awareness reigns
And again sure don't experiment on them or keep in captivity
All can be achieved under animal laws without resorting to conferring some sort of quasi personhood

Interesting times

:)
 
Anyway back on track of the OP .

Space is fundamental to any manifestation of any form .
Well obviously, since the BB was the evolution of space and time [spacetime] and matter came later due to complex phase transitions and false vacuums, and the fact that spacetime is still expanding and has been at different rates for 13.83 billion years, it has had plenty of time to get as big as it is, whatever size that is.
But remember there is far more inter galactic space where only quantum interactions exist, then there is for what matter does exist....and those regions are increasing as gravity works on planets, stars, galaxies, groups of galaxies, pulling them together and leaving further inter galactic space where nothing exists other then continued quantum actions.

In essence, there exists in Intergalactic space about 1 atom of H per cubic metre, whereas a cubic metre of air has about 60,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms....give or take a few million
 
Last edited:
Well obviously, since the BB was the evolution of space and time [spacetime] and matter came later due to complex phase transitions and false vacuums, and the fact that spacetime is still expanding and has been at different rates for 13.83 billion years, it has had plenty of time to get as big as it is, whatever size that is.
But remember there is far more inter galactic space where only quantum interactions exist, then there is for what matter does exist....and those regions are increasing as gravity works on planets, stars, galaxies, groups of galaxies, pulling them together and leaving further inter galactic space where nothing exists other then continued quantum actions.

In essence, there exists in Intergalactic space about 1 atom of H per cubic metre, whereas a cubic metre of air has about 60,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms....give or take a few million

BB is not so obvious .

Anyway air is under pressure , hence a greater density . Than H in space .
 
BB is not so obvious .

.
That's your problem and opinion. The BB/inflationary model of universal evolution is the current overwhelming supported model by mainstream and most reputable scientists. That's the way it stands at this time.
Anyway air is under pressure , hence a greater density . Than H in space
aIR/ATMOSPHERE is held to earth via gravity and is the pressure we feel. Density varying with height above sea level.
 
Last edited:
That's your problem and opinion. The BB/inflationary model of universal evolution is the current overwhelming supported model by mainstream and most reputable scientists. That's the way it stands at this time.

aIR/ATMOSPHERE is held to earth via gravity and is the pressure we feel. Density varying with height above sea level.

Its not a problem to me , and my opinion sure , but I find that the difficulties with holding onto BB as theory of our Universe seems perpetual .
 
Its not a problem to me , and my opinion sure , but I find that the difficulties with holding onto BB as theory of our Universe seems perpetual .
There's no doubt that it leaves unanswered questions. However, in the meantime, it:
  • proves itself to be extremely predictive and useful (the ultimate goal of a theory), and
  • has no serious contenders
It's trivial to say "I don't like X"; it is substantially less trivial to say "here's an alternative that does as well or better at explaining the centuries of data and working models we've accrued."
 
Its not a problem to me , and my opinion sure , but I find that the difficulties with holding onto BB as theory of our Universe seems perpetual .
Perpetual?? :smile: The BB has only arisen above a trio of hypotheticals of the evolution of the universe since the 1960s: It was before that in competition with Steady State and Oscillating and the discovery and confirmation of the CMBR re enforced it, while the other two dropped to obscurity. And of course the BB remains as the preferred explanation at least, and until a better theory comes along.
 
And of course the BB remains as the preferred explanation at least, and until a better theory comes along.
Not to put too fine a point on it but, a better one will not come along.

Our standard model of the universe, collected over centuries, does extremely well back to 10^-43 s of our universe.
Our model will certainly be tweaked, but it will not be replaced , certainly not without another few centuries of data that somehow manages to conflict with all that we have accrued to-date.
 
Not to put too fine a point on it but, a better one will not come along.

Our standard model of the universe, collected over centuries, does extremely well back to 10^-43 s of our universe.
Our model will certainly be tweaked, but it will not be replaced , certainly not without another few centuries of data that somehow manages to conflict with all that we have accrued to-date.
I agree 100% Dave. On a past, now defunct forum, an astronomer mentioned that even a QGT will almost certainly encompass the BB scenario, while obviously extending the parameters at which the BB describes.
 
BB is primative theory on the Universe , gravity based . It will be swept aside by further research in the decades and centuries to come .

Cosmic Plasmas is the future of deeper understanding of our Universe .
 
BB is primative theory on the Universe , gravity based . It will be swept aside by further research in the decades and centuries to come .

Cosmic Plasmas is the future of deeper understanding of our Universe .

And the big bad magical spaghetti monster will also reveal himself..
You keep hoping river! :D:rolleyes:
 
Back
Top