Discussion:
Why isn't the observable universe awash in signals of ET civilizations?
(too old to reply)
The Zygon
2018-03-03 07:44:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous scientist once said that physical phenomena are either unique or there are lots of them. Given that most rationalists today assume (or at minimum, grant as a working hypothesis) that we are not unique, what explains the fact that we are not awash in signals of ET civilization?

I have heard several theories as to why we have had no evidence of ET civilization. The simplest and the one which seems most persuasive to me is that technological ET civilizations which we could detect are extremely rare and there is none within the range that we are able to detect.

I would like to hear from others. Which theories have you heard and which do you find credible?
J. Clarke
2018-03-03 11:11:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 2 Mar 2018 23:44:01 -0800 (PST), The Zygon
Post by The Zygon
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous scientist once said that physical phenomena are either unique or there are lots of them. Given that most rationalists today assume (or at minimum, grant as a working hypothesis) that we are not unique, what explains the fact that we are not awash in signals of ET civilization?
The famous scientist was (a) wrong or (b) quoted out of context?
Post by The Zygon
I have heard several theories as to why we have had no evidence of ET civilization. The simplest and the one which seems most persuasive to me is that technological ET civilizations which we could detect are extremely rare and there is none within the range that we are able to detect.
I would like to hear from others. Which theories have you heard and which do you find credible?
I haven't heard any theories. We do not have enough evidence to form
a theory. I have heard a lot of speculation.
Robert Carnegie
2018-03-04 15:34:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 2 Mar 2018 23:44:01 -0800 (PST), The Zygon
Post by The Zygon
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous scientist once said that physical phenomena are either unique or there are lots of them. Given that most rationalists today assume (or at minimum, grant as a working hypothesis) that we are not unique, what explains the fact that we are not awash in signals of ET civilization?
The famous scientist was (a) wrong or (b) quoted out of context?
A fictional scientist mentions it in Asimov's _Gur Tbqf Gurzfyirf_
(ROT13 code).

An alien culture is transmitting *spoiler* [1] into our space
to our eventual detriment.

The remedy is that we transmit it into a different space
in our turn.

Or something like that. I think this would be frowned on
in _Star Trek_; there are Voyager episodes about space-trucks
full of waste antimatter dumping it where it's going to...
you know, I think it works better as allegory, that time,
than as futurology.

[1] Actually I've forgotten what, but it probably is also
a spoiler.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by The Zygon
I have heard several theories as to why we have had no evidence of ET civilization. The simplest and the one which seems most persuasive to me is that technological ET civilizations which we could detect are extremely rare and there is none within the range that we are able to detect.
I would like to hear from others. Which theories have you heard and which do you find credible?
I haven't heard any theories. We do not have enough evidence to form
a theory. I have heard a lot of speculation.
The Zygon
2018-03-05 02:35:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by The Zygon
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous scientist once said that physical phenomena are either unique or there are lots of them. Given that most rationalists today assume (or at minimum, grant as a working hypothesis) that we are not unique, what explains the fact that we are not awash in signals of ET civilization?
The famous scientist was (a) wrong or (b) quoted out of context?
Post by The Zygon
I have heard several theories as to why we have had no evidence of ET civilization. The simplest and the one which seems most persuasive to me is that technological ET civilizations which we could detect are extremely rare and there is none within the range that we are able to detect.
I would like to hear from others. Which theories have you heard and which do you find credible?
I haven't heard any theories. We do not have enough evidence to form
a theory. I have heard a lot of speculation.
Agreed. I used the word too loosely. What speculations have you heard?
J. Clarke
2018-03-05 02:51:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 4 Mar 2018 18:35:04 -0800 (PST), The Zygon
Post by The Zygon
Post by J. Clarke
Post by The Zygon
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous scientist once said that physical phenomena are either unique or there are lots of them. Given that most rationalists today assume (or at minimum, grant as a working hypothesis) that we are not unique, what explains the fact that we are not awash in signals of ET civilization?
The famous scientist was (a) wrong or (b) quoted out of context?
Post by The Zygon
I have heard several theories as to why we have had no evidence of ET civilization. The simplest and the one which seems most persuasive to me is that technological ET civilizations which we could detect are extremely rare and there is none within the range that we are able to detect.
I would like to hear from others. Which theories have you heard and which do you find credible?
I haven't heard any theories. We do not have enough evidence to form
a theory. I have heard a lot of speculation.
Agreed. I used the word too loosely. What speculations have you heard?
Everything from the "ET Greenies don't want to pollute our pristine
environment" to "Some Mysterious Force is preventing interstellar
travel". My own view is that it just costs too much for anybody to
bother.
m***@sky.com
2018-03-03 11:26:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Zygon
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous scientist once said that physical phenomena are either unique or there are lots of them. Given that most rationalists today assume (or at minimum, grant as a working hypothesis) that we are not unique, what explains the fact that we are not awash in signals of ET civilization?
I have heard several theories as to why we have had no evidence of ET civilization. The simplest and the one which seems most persuasive to me is that technological ET civilizations which we could detect are extremely rare and there is none within the range that we are able to detect.
I would like to hear from others. Which theories have you heard and which do you find credible?
I'm going to assume that you are talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

I don't think people thought about this in early Science Fiction - Wikipedia dates one of the related arguments to 1981 in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_spacecraft

I've seen a couple of stories talking about civilizations in hiding, regarding each other as lethal threats - Cixin Liu's "The Dark Forest" and to some extent Les Johnson's Mission to Methone (just finished that - want to reread)

In Honsinger's Man of War series there was a civilization in this neighbourhood busily wiping out intelligent species as they evolved, to stop future threats - until other species decided that was bad form, and wiped it out in its turn. Thus a breathing space ensued in which humanity and assorted other species could survive and come to roughly the same stage of development at roughly the same time.

I have a theory in which intelligent species with space-faring technology agree that exponential growth by any of them is an existential threat to all of them, and agree to limit themselves to their home systems. When first contact is made, a new member species gets a welcome package with lots of nice technology - and a dire threat to stay in their own home system.

If there was a cheap technology for colonization which didn't involve travelling to neighbouring stars, such as travelling to alternate worlds, then we wouldn't see exponential growth from star to star because there would be no point to it - why struggle to cross light years from start to star if OTL earth can find cheap gateways to two unpopulated alternate world earths, and each of those two worlds can find a cheap gateway to two other unpopulated alternate world earths, and so on?
Chris Buckley
2018-03-03 16:09:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by The Zygon
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous scientist once said that physical phenomena are either unique or there are lots of them. Given that most rationalists today assume (or at minimum, grant as a working hypothesis) that we are not unique, what explains the fact that we are not awash in signals of ET civilization?
I have heard several theories as to why we have had no evidence of ET civilization. The simplest and the one which seems most persuasive to me is that technological ET civilizations which we could detect are extremely rare and there is none within the range that we are able to detect.
I would like to hear from others. Which theories have you heard and which do you find credible?
I'm going to assume that you are talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
I don't think people thought about this in early Science Fiction - Wikipedia dates one of the related arguments to 1981 in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_spacecraft
I've seen a couple of stories talking about civilizations in hiding, regarding each other as lethal threats - Cixin Liu's "The Dark Forest" and to some extent Les Johnson's Mission to Methone (just finished that - want to reread)
An somewhat related early treatment of this (1969) is Piers Anthony's
_Macroscope_, where civilizations are forcibly kept apart by "The Destroyer"
until they are mature enough not to regard each other as lethal threats.

_Macroscope_ is Anthony's one serious science fiction book I would
recommend. It's an incredibly ambitious work that attempts to unify
all sorts of things at all sorts of levels, going in scale from within
the brain (in several different aspects, including brain enzymes) to
intergalactic intelligence, with major parts set within a framework of
astrology! It doesn't completely succeed, but it is thought provoking.

Chris
Ahasuerus
2018-03-03 21:00:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, March 3, 2018 at 6:26:35 AM UTC-5, ***@sky.com wrote:
[snip]
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by The Zygon
I have heard several theories as to why we have had no evidence
of ET civilization. [snip]
I'm going to assume that you are talking about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
The notion that a species that:

1. has been around for roughly 0.001% of the lifetime of the galaxy, and
2. has developed some idea of what the universe is like over the last
0.1% of its lifetime

would recognize (or even establish contact with) another intelligence,
civilization, etc seems optimistic. Young ones are always so cute...
Post by m***@sky.com
I have a theory in which intelligent species with space-faring
technology agree that exponential growth by any of them is an
existential threat to all of them, and agree to limit themselves to
their home systems. When first contact is made, a new member species
gets a welcome package with lots of nice technology - and a dire
threat to stay in their own home system.
ObSF: Alan Dean Foster's "With Friends Like These ..."
(http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?51412), Edmond Hamilton's
_The Haunted Stars_ (http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?452591),
etc.
Post by m***@sky.com
If there was a cheap technology for colonization which didn't
involve travelling to neighbouring stars, such as travelling to
alternate worlds, then we wouldn't see exponential growth from
star to star because there would be no point to it - why struggle
to cross light years from start to star if OTL earth can find
cheap gateways to two unpopulated alternate world earths, and each
of those two worlds can find a cheap gateway to two other
unpopulated alternate world earths, and so on?
It's a lot of fun at first, but eventually it can get boring.
The Zygon
2018-03-05 04:23:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ahasuerus
[snip]
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by The Zygon
I have heard several theories as to why we have had no evidence
of ET civilization. [snip]
I'm going to assume that you are talking about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
1. has been around for roughly 0.001% of the lifetime of the galaxy, and
2. has developed some idea of what the universe is like over the last
0.1% of its lifetime
would recognize (or even establish contact with) another intelligence,
civilization, etc seems optimistic. Young ones are always so cute...
Post by m***@sky.com
I have a theory in which intelligent species with space-faring
technology agree that exponential growth by any of them is an
existential threat to all of them, and agree to limit themselves to
their home systems. When first contact is made, a new member species
gets a welcome package with lots of nice technology - and a dire
threat to stay in their own home system.
ObSF: Alan Dean Foster's "With Friends Like These ..."
(http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?51412), Edmond Hamilton's
_The Haunted Stars_ (http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?452591),
etc.
Post by m***@sky.com
If there was a cheap technology for colonization which didn't
involve travelling to neighbouring stars, such as travelling to
alternate worlds, then we wouldn't see exponential growth from
star to star because there would be no point to it - why struggle
to cross light years from start to star if OTL earth can find
cheap gateways to two unpopulated alternate world earths, and each
of those two worlds can find a cheap gateway to two other
unpopulated alternate world earths, and so on?
It's a lot of fun at first, but eventually it can get boring.
Fermi was famous for his "back of a napkin" calculations. And it was remarkable that they did not turn out to be pure crap given how quickly he did them and simple math he used and the complexity of the problems he tackled. But they were often not "close, though you may read that a lot. They only close given how roughly they were done - and that is not the same thing.

In this case, we really have no idea how close he was. So his paradox may be no paradox at all. There could be literally billions of technologically advanced species in the universe and still all be millions of light years away from us. The universe is that huge. An average of less than one technologically advanced species per galaxy, but close to would produce that result.
nuny@bid.nes
2018-03-05 07:29:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ahasuerus
[snip]
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by The Zygon
I have heard several theories as to why we have had no evidence
of ET civilization. [snip]
I'm going to assume that you are talking about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
1. has been around for roughly 0.001% of the lifetime of the galaxy, and
2. has developed some idea of what the universe is like over the last
0.1% of its lifetime
would recognize (or even establish contact with) another intelligence,
civilization, etc seems optimistic. Young ones are always so cute...
But but, current human civilization is the Pinnacle Of Creation, and the customs of our tribe are the laws of Nature!

Even ignoring things like FSK-modulated (flavor-shift keyed) neutrino communications channels we do not know for sure how to tell a random signal (natural noise) from an extremely complex signal in an encoding scheme we haven't invented.

I'm thinking here of people who are certain the Voynich Manuscript is not a hoax because of the frequency distribution of the various characters- it "looks like" natural language rather than noise, but they can't even say which language group much less which language.
Post by Ahasuerus
Post by m***@sky.com
I have a theory in which intelligent species with space-faring
technology agree that exponential growth by any of them is an
existential threat to all of them, and agree to limit themselves to
their home systems. When first contact is made, a new member species
gets a welcome package with lots of nice technology - and a dire
threat to stay in their own home system.
ObSF: Alan Dean Foster's "With Friends Like These ..."
(http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?51412), Edmond Hamilton's
_The Haunted Stars_ (http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?452591),
etc.
Post by m***@sky.com
If there was a cheap technology for colonization which didn't
involve travelling to neighbouring stars, such as travelling to
alternate worlds, then we wouldn't see exponential growth from
star to star because there would be no point to it - why struggle
to cross light years from start to star if OTL earth can find
cheap gateways to two unpopulated alternate world earths, and each
of those two worlds can find a cheap gateway to two other
unpopulated alternate world earths, and so on?
Cramer's _Twistor_ really needs a sequel or five.
Post by Ahasuerus
It's a lot of fun at first, but eventually it can get boring.
I'd like to know how you're supposed to avoid the populated ones without visiting them first- see Laumer's _Worlds Of The Imperium_.


Mark L. Fergerson
Dorothy J Heydt
2018-03-05 14:34:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Ahasuerus
[snip]
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by The Zygon
I have heard several theories as to why we have had no evidence
of ET civilization. [snip]
I'm going to assume that you are talking about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
1. has been around for roughly 0.001% of the lifetime of the galaxy, and
2. has developed some idea of what the universe is like over the last
0.1% of its lifetime
would recognize (or even establish contact with) another intelligence,
civilization, etc seems optimistic. Young ones are always so cute...
But but, current human civilization is the Pinnacle Of Creation, and
the customs of our tribe are the laws of Nature!
Even ignoring things like FSK-modulated (flavor-shift keyed) neutrino
communications channels we do not know for sure how to tell a random
signal (natural noise) from an extremely complex signal in an encoding
scheme we haven't invented.
I'm thinking here of people who are certain the Voynich Manuscript is
not a hoax because of the frequency distribution of the various
characters- it "looks like" natural language rather than noise, but
they can't even say which language group much less which language.
Post by Ahasuerus
Post by m***@sky.com
I have a theory in which intelligent species with space-faring
technology agree that exponential growth by any of them is an
existential threat to all of them, and agree to limit themselves to
their home systems. When first contact is made, a new member species
gets a welcome package with lots of nice technology - and a dire
threat to stay in their own home system.
ObSF: Alan Dean Foster's "With Friends Like These ..."
(http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?51412), Edmond Hamilton's
_The Haunted Stars_ (http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?452591),
etc.
Post by m***@sky.com
If there was a cheap technology for colonization which didn't
involve travelling to neighbouring stars, such as travelling to
alternate worlds, then we wouldn't see exponential growth from
star to star because there would be no point to it - why struggle
to cross light years from start to star if OTL earth can find
cheap gateways to two unpopulated alternate world earths, and each
of those two worlds can find a cheap gateway to two other
unpopulated alternate world earths, and so on?
Cramer's _Twistor_ really needs a sequel or five.
Post by Ahasuerus
It's a lot of fun at first, but eventually it can get boring.
I'd like to know how you're supposed to avoid the populated ones
without visiting them first- see Laumer's _Worlds Of The Imperium_.
The way you're supposed to recognize them in the first place, by
radio emissions or whatever?
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Peter Trei
2018-03-05 17:42:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Ahasuerus
[snip]
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by The Zygon
I have heard several theories as to why we have had no evidence
of ET civilization. [snip]
I'm going to assume that you are talking about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
1. has been around for roughly 0.001% of the lifetime of the galaxy, and
2. has developed some idea of what the universe is like over the last
0.1% of its lifetime
would recognize (or even establish contact with) another intelligence,
civilization, etc seems optimistic. Young ones are always so cute...
But but, current human civilization is the Pinnacle Of Creation, and the customs of our tribe are the laws of Nature!
Even ignoring things like FSK-modulated (flavor-shift keyed) neutrino communications channels we do not know for sure how to tell a random signal (natural noise) from an extremely complex signal in an encoding scheme we haven't invented.
I'm thinking here of people who are certain the Voynich Manuscript is not a hoax because of the frequency distribution of the various characters- it "looks like" natural language rather than noise, but they can't even say which language group much less which language.
The problem is, that while 'natural' languages contain a great deal of
redundancy and repeated data, allowing this kind of frequency analysis to
work, 'engineered' languages don't have to. Data compression ideally should
produce an output indistinguishable from noise; if there's a predictable
pattern in the data, you can improve the compression by removing the
pattern and regenerating it on reception.

...and that's not including things like CDM (Code division multiplexing) where
you deliberately mix your signal with high-frequency pseudorandom noise.

I don't think its clear that even if we were to receive an alien's
transmissions, that we could recognize it as such.

pt
The Zygon
2018-03-05 02:48:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by The Zygon
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous scientist once said that physical phenomena are either unique or there are lots of them. Given that most rationalists today assume (or at minimum, grant as a working hypothesis) that we are not unique, what explains the fact that we are not awash in signals of ET civilization?
I have heard several theories as to why we have had no evidence of ET civilization. The simplest and the one which seems most persuasive to me is that technological ET civilizations which we could detect are extremely rare and there is none within the range that we are able to detect.
I would like to hear from others. Which theories have you heard and which do you find credible?
I'm going to assume that you are talking about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
I don't think people thought about this in early Science Fiction - Wikipedia dates one of the related arguments to 1981 in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replicating_spacecraft
I've seen a couple of stories talking about civilizations in hiding, regarding each other as lethal threats - Cixin Liu's "The Dark Forest" and to some extent Les Johnson's Mission to Methone (just finished that - want to reread)
In Honsinger's Man of War series there was a civilization in this neighbourhood busily wiping out intelligent species as they evolved, to stop future threats - until other species decided that was bad form, and wiped it out in its turn. Thus a breathing space ensued in which humanity and assorted other species could survive and come to roughly the same stage of development at roughly the same time.
I have a theory in which intelligent species with space-faring technology agree that exponential growth by any of them is an existential threat to all of them, and agree to limit themselves to their home systems. When first contact is made, a new member species gets a welcome package with lots of nice technology - and a dire threat to stay in their own home system.
If there was a cheap technology for colonization which didn't involve travelling to neighbouring stars, such as travelling to alternate worlds, then we wouldn't see exponential growth from star to star because there would be no point to it - why struggle to cross light years from start to star if OTL earth can find cheap gateways to two unpopulated alternate world earths, and each of those two worlds can find a cheap gateway to two other unpopulated alternate world earths, and so on?
==
Thanks for those story references. I like them. I will check them out.

I had heard of the hiding society speculation. But the welcoming party. It is hard to imagine highly advanced societies which are not curious, and curious but behaving according to that speculation.

Even the hiding society theory does not work. Some time before they thought to hide or able to, they would have radiated into space quite freely.

Also, I was not thinking of space travel. I don't think that interstellar travel is impractical. I think that the light-speed limit is real.
Jack Bohn
2018-03-05 16:16:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I had heard of the hiding society speculation.  But the welcoming party.  It is hard >to imagine highly advanced societies which are not curious, and curious but behaving >according to that speculation. 
Even the hiding society theory does not work.  Some time before they thought to hide >or able to, they would have radiated into space quite freely. 
John Michael Godier has several YouTube presentations on the subject. One, "Sleeping Giants", points out some cosmological thoughts that conditions near the end of the universe will be more conducive to life, or at least computer simulations of such. A civilization might suspend itself to wait to take advantage of that. Meanwhile, they'd not want others to use up all the resources. So they'd have automated probes (designed not to be complex enough to develop into a competitor) seek out and snuff out aliens. For tough infestations, it can raise a Great Old One (one, so as not to be tempted to start its own family/dynasty in advance of all the sleeping ones.

Another one, "The Great Filter", takes sort of a pessimistic view of the Drake Equation, that one factor must nearly zero everything out. It could either be something we passed to get to our current development, or something in our future. It takes the view that nothing in our past could be so hard that noone else could pass it -after all, we did- so there is a tough test in our future, and how can we be the only ones to pass it?
--
-Jack
Sjouke Burry
2018-03-03 13:44:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Zygon
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous scientist once said that physical phenomena are either unique or there are lots of them. Given that most rationalists today assume (or at minimum, grant as a working hypothesis) that we are not unique, what explains the fact that we are not awash in signals of ET civilization?
I have heard several theories as to why we have had no evidence of ET civilization. The simplest and the one which seems most persuasive to me is that technological ET civilizations which we could detect are extremely rare and there is none within the range that we are able to detect.
I would like to hear from others. Which theories have you heard and which do you find credible?
Suns, black holes and colliding gas produce radiation,
billions of times stronger then anything a civilisation
can produce.
Try seeing a burning match with a high power searchlight
one meter away blinding you.
Even the biggest lasers we can build, are barely detectable
at our nearest neighbour,Alpha Centaury.
Another problem is the lifetime difference between the usable
lifetime of a planet and a star.
For the planet millions of years, for the star,
billions of years.

So,given two starsystems with sentient live in their history,
the chance of civilisations exsisting in the same time period,
is in the order of 1 in a 1000

When you could go to another star, bare rock/gas or primordeal slime
or very old ruins is what you probably will find.
a425couple
2018-03-04 04:07:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sjouke Burry
Post by The Zygon
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous scientist once said
that physical phenomena are either unique or there are lots of them.
Given that most rationalists today assume (or at minimum, grant as a
working hypothesis) that we are not unique,  what explains the fact
that we are not awash in signals of ET civilization?
I have heard several theories as to why we have had no evidence of ET
civilization.  The simplest and the one which seems most persuasive to
me is that technological ET civilizations which we could detect are
extremely rare and there is none within the range that we are able to
detect.
I would like to hear from others.  Which theories have you heard and
which do you find credible?
Suns, black holes and colliding gas produce radiation,
billions of times stronger then anything a civilisation
can produce.
Try seeing a burning match with a high power searchlight
one meter away blinding you.
Even the biggest lasers we can build, are barely detectable
at our nearest neighbour,Alpha Centaury.
Another problem is the lifetime difference between the usable
lifetime of a planet and a star.
For the planet millions of years, for the star,
billions of years.
So,given two starsystems with sentient live in their history,
the chance of civilisations exsisting in the same time period,
is in the order of 1 in a 1000
When you could go to another star, bare rock/gas or primordeal slime
or very old ruins is what you probably will find.
Your above reasons, especially your last two ideas
stated above, are close to what I think.
The Zygon
2018-03-05 02:56:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sjouke Burry
Post by The Zygon
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous scientist once said that physical phenomena are either unique or there are lots of them. Given that most rationalists today assume (or at minimum, grant as a working hypothesis) that we are not unique, what explains the fact that we are not awash in signals of ET civilization?
I have heard several theories as to why we have had no evidence of ET civilization. The simplest and the one which seems most persuasive to me is that technological ET civilizations which we could detect are extremely rare and there is none within the range that we are able to detect.
I would like to hear from others. Which theories have you heard and which do you find credible?
Suns, black holes and colliding gas produce radiation,
billions of times stronger then anything a civilisation
can produce.
Try seeing a burning match with a high power searchlight
one meter away blinding you.
Even the biggest lasers we can build, are barely detectable
at our nearest neighbour,Alpha Centaury.
Another problem is the lifetime difference between the usable
lifetime of a planet and a star.
For the planet millions of years, for the star,
billions of years.
So,given two starsystems with sentient live in their history,
the chance of civilisations exsisting in the same time period,
is in the order of 1 in a 1000
When you could go to another star, bare rock/gas or primordeal slime
or very old ruins is what you probably will find.
In our galaxy alone, chances of 1 in 1000 would yield an expectation of millions. When you are dealing with really large numbers, probabilities of or the order of 1 in 1000 are very, very high.

As for the dust cloud limitation, I have read that if any planet within a 50 light-year volume of space around us were radidating as we have for the last 100 years, we would be able to detect it.
a425couple
2018-03-06 20:09:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Zygon
Post by Sjouke Burry
Post by The Zygon
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous scientist once said that physical phenomena are either unique or there are lots of them. Given that most rationalists today assume (or at minimum, grant as a working hypothesis) that we are not unique, what explains the fact that we are not awash in signals of ET civilization?
I have heard several theories as to why we have had no evidence of ET civilization. The simplest and the one which seems most persuasive to me is that technological ET civilizations which we could detect are extremely rare and there is none within the range that we are able to detect.
I would like to hear from others. Which theories have you heard and which do you find credible?
Suns, black holes and colliding gas produce radiation,
billions of times stronger then anything a civilisation
can produce.
Try seeing a burning match with a high power searchlight
one meter away blinding you.
Even the biggest lasers we can build, are barely detectable
at our nearest neighbour,Alpha Centaury.
Another problem is the lifetime difference between the usable
lifetime of a planet and a star.
For the planet millions of years, for the star,
billions of years.
So,given two starsystems with sentient live in their history,
the chance of civilisations exsisting in the same time period,
is in the order of 1 in a 1000
When you could go to another star, bare rock/gas or primordeal slime
or very old ruins is what you probably will find.
In our galaxy alone, chances of 1 in 1000 would yield an expectation of millions. When you are dealing with really large numbers, probabilities of or the order of 1 in 1000 are very, very high.
As for the dust cloud limitation, I have read that if any planet within a 50 light-year volume of space around us were radidating as we have for the last 100 years, we would be able to detect it.
This citation, seems to indicate that is a limited number.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_exoplanets
The Zygon
2018-03-07 00:25:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a425couple
Post by The Zygon
Post by Sjouke Burry
Post by The Zygon
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous scientist once said that physical phenomena are either unique or there are lots of them. Given that most rationalists today assume (or at minimum, grant as a working hypothesis) that we are not unique, what explains the fact that we are not awash in signals of ET civilization?
I have heard several theories as to why we have had no evidence of ET civilization. The simplest and the one which seems most persuasive to me is that technological ET civilizations which we could detect are extremely rare and there is none within the range that we are able to detect.
I would like to hear from others. Which theories have you heard and which do you find credible?
Suns, black holes and colliding gas produce radiation,
billions of times stronger then anything a civilisation
can produce.
Try seeing a burning match with a high power searchlight
one meter away blinding you.
Even the biggest lasers we can build, are barely detectable
at our nearest neighbour,Alpha Centaury.
Another problem is the lifetime difference between the usable
lifetime of a planet and a star.
For the planet millions of years, for the star,
billions of years.
So,given two starsystems with sentient live in their history,
the chance of civilisations exsisting in the same time period,
is in the order of 1 in a 1000
When you could go to another star, bare rock/gas or primordeal slime
or very old ruins is what you probably will find.
In our galaxy alone, chances of 1 in 1000 would yield an expectation of millions. When you are dealing with really large numbers, probabilities of or the order of 1 in 1000 are very, very high.
As for the dust cloud limitation, I have read that if any planet within a 50 light-year volume of space around us were radidating as we have for the last 100 years, we would be able to detect it.
This citation, seems to indicate that is a limited number.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_exoplanets
Understood. But my point was more about our ability to detect and identify "unnatural" electromagnetic sources than about the probability of life in that volume of spc
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-03-06 23:43:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Zygon
Post by a425couple
Post by The Zygon
Post by Sjouke Burry
Post by The Zygon
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous scientist
once said th
at physical phenomena are either unique or there are lots of
them. Given that most rationalists today assume (or at minimum,
grant as a working hypothesis) that we are not unique, what
explains the fact that we are not awash in signals of ET
civilization?
Post by a425couple
Post by The Zygon
Post by Sjouke Burry
Post by The Zygon
I have heard several theories as to why we have had no
evidence of ET
civilization. The simplest and the one which seems most
persuasive to me is that technological ET civilizations which
we could detect are extremely rare and there is none within the
range that we are able to detect.
Post by a425couple
Post by The Zygon
Post by Sjouke Burry
Post by The Zygon
I would like to hear from others. Which theories have you
heard and
which do you find credible?
Post by a425couple
Post by The Zygon
Post by Sjouke Burry
Suns, black holes and colliding gas produce radiation,
billions of times stronger then anything a civilisation
can produce.
Try seeing a burning match with a high power searchlight
one meter away blinding you.
Even the biggest lasers we can build, are barely detectable
at our nearest neighbour,Alpha Centaury.
Another problem is the lifetime difference between the
usable lifetime of a planet and a star.
For the planet millions of years, for the star,
billions of years.
So,given two starsystems with sentient live in their
history, the chance of civilisations exsisting in the same
time period, is in the order of 1 in a 1000
When you could go to another star, bare rock/gas or
primordeal slime or very old ruins is what you probably will
find.
In our galaxy alone, chances of 1 in 1000 would yield an
expectation of
millions. When you are dealing with really large numbers,
probabilities of or the order of 1 in 1000 are very, very high.
Post by a425couple
Post by The Zygon
As for the dust cloud limitation, I have read that if any
planet within
a 50 light-year volume of space around us were radidating as we
have for the last 100 years, we would be able to detect it.
Post by a425couple
This citation, seems to indicate that is a limited number.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_exoplanets
Understood. But my point was more about our ability to detect
and identify "unnatural" electromagnetic sources than about the
probability of life in that volume of spc
And that is a very good point. Stars put out a lot of EM radtiation
anyway, and the direction that computer communications are going is
more towards encryption and compression. Both of which look more
and more like random noise, as the technology improves.

Or maybe they don't use radio any more.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
David DeLaney
2018-03-05 10:22:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sjouke Burry
Suns, black holes and colliding gas produce radiation,
billions of times stronger then anything a civilisation
can produce.
Try seeing a burning match with a high power searchlight
one meter away blinding you.
Even the biggest lasers we can build, are barely detectable
at our nearest neighbour,Alpha Centaur[i].
Ah, but our detection systems are constantly getting more nuanced & powerful.
(See: the exoplanet searching we're now successfully doing.)
Post by Sjouke Burry
Another problem is the lifetime difference between the usable
lifetime of a planet and a star.
For the planet millions of years, for the star,
billions of years.
? Don't confuse the usable lifetime of a planet, which is MUCH longer than
that, with the "usable lifetime" of a _species_, which usually is indeed
limited to around millions of years.

Dave, same answer, different show-your-work
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
my gatekeeper archives are no longer accessible :( / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2018-03-03 16:26:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Zygon
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous scientist once said that
physical phenomena are either unique or there are lots of them. Given
that most rationalists today assume (or at minimum, grant as a working
hypothesis) that we are not unique, what explains the fact that we are
not awash in signals of ET civilization?
I have heard several theories as to why we have had no evidence of ET
civilization. The simplest and the one which seems most persuasive to
me is that technological ET civilizations which we could detect are
extremely rare and there is none within the range that we are able to
detect.
I would like to hear from others. Which theories have you heard and
which do you find credible?
That's the way The Arena likes it..
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
David Goldfarb
2018-03-03 20:52:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Zygon
I have heard several theories as to why we have had no evidence of ET
civilization. The simplest and the one which seems most persuasive to
me is that technological ET civilizations which we could detect are
extremely rare and there is none within the range that we are able to
detect.
I agree with that. You've probably heard of the Drake Equation, which
attempts to capture all of the factors leading to intelligence with
technical civilization, to work out the number of such civilizations
in our galaxy.

The equation includes some parameters which are known to be large
(the number of stars in the galaxy, the number of years in the age
of the universe) and others that are completely unknown, but are
potentially quite small (the proportion of life-bearing planets
on which that life achieves sapience). Since it multiplies together
large factors with ones that might or might not be small, most
likely the solution to the equation is either very large -- Isaac
Asimov once estimated some numbers and came out with one on the
order of 10^8 -- or else very small, much smaller than one; it is
unlikely that it just happens to be on the order of 10^0 or 10^1.

Now, it's tempting to consider that our own existence means that
the lower bound is in fact 10^0. But that's wrong: it could be
that the solution is in fact very small, 10^-3 or even 10^-6. It
could be that you would have to search a thousand galaxies to find
one with intelligent life. And the Milky Way just happens to be
that one.

On my good days, I think that the chance of life developing intelligence
is simply very very low. On my bad days, I think that chance is
reasonably large, but that the *time* in which technical civilization
can exist is short, because intelligent life invariably destroys
its environment and itself. For example, any intelligent life based
around carbon and water (as we are) will inevitably live on a planet
with fossil hydrocarbons, which become a tempting source of energy.
And if that creates a runaway greenhouse, well --

Of course I should not be a carbon chauvinist, but I don't know enough
about any other way of putting life together to speculate for them.
--
David Goldfarb |"The Carson/Johnson Law of Human Behavior:
***@gmail.com | 80% of all questions that begin with the word
***@ocf.berkeley.edu | 'why' can be answered with the phrase
| 'People are stupid.'" -- Ted Faber
Quadibloc
2018-03-03 22:11:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Goldfarb
On my bad days, I think that chance is
reasonably large, but that the *time* in which technical civilization
can exist is short, because intelligent life invariably destroys
its environment and itself. For example, any intelligent life based
around carbon and water (as we are) will inevitably live on a planet
with fossil hydrocarbons, which become a tempting source of energy.
And if that creates a runaway greenhouse, well --
Not every civilization is doomed to be stupid or unlucky. On another planet, the
equivalent of World War II might have left *only* democracies among the
industrialized nations, instead of having Stalin's Russia around... hence, no
worries about nuclear war.

And we have atomic energy to indulge ourselves with without filling the air with
carbon dioxide.

Thus, even if we don't survive, survival was an option for some of the races out
there.

Because technology wasn't going to result immediately from having big brains,
and big brains have a large metabolic cost, our big brains came about as the
result of an evolutionary accident. Like the horns of the Irish Elk, like the
tail of the peacock, they're the result of sexual selection.

Bipedalism made human courtship... very complicated... as described in Elaine
Morgan's _The Descent of Woman_.

It could be that other intelligent species are, like ourselves, *flawed*
species. Species that are in a serious disequilibrium with their environment and
between their members, even before the effects of disproportionate technical
power enter the picture.

With multiple independent political units, instead of one World Government, it
can happen that a necessity is seen, and the appropriate course of action is
technically feasible, and yet we cannot act on it - because while one polity can
act, it cannot compel the other polities to cooperate.

And, yet, those who say that a World Government will likely become a world
dictatorship, stifling progress forever, are probably right. The solution is not
simple.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2018-03-03 22:41:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by David Goldfarb
On my bad days, I think that chance is
reasonably large, but that the *time* in which technical civilization
can exist is short, because intelligent life invariably destroys
its environment and itself. For example, any intelligent life based
around carbon and water (as we are) will inevitably live on a planet
with fossil hydrocarbons, which become a tempting source of energy.
And if that creates a runaway greenhouse, well --
Not every civilization is doomed to be stupid or unlucky. On another planet, the
equivalent of World War II might have left *only* democracies among the
industrialized nations, instead of having Stalin's Russia around... hence, no
worries about nuclear war.
Or maybe your hypothesis that there is something magic about
"democracies" that makes it impossible for them to blow each other to
Kingdom Come is in error.
Post by Quadibloc
And we have atomic energy to indulge ourselves with without filling the air with
carbon dioxide.
What were you saying about "democracies"? It seems to have escaped
your notice that the major obstacle to widespread adoption of nuclear
energy is the fears of the demos.
Post by Quadibloc
Thus, even if we don't survive, survival was an option for some of the races out
there.
Unless it wasn't. Something you are missing is that our ability to
fuck up is in its infancy.
Post by Quadibloc
Because technology wasn't going to result immediately from having big brains,
and big brains have a large metabolic cost, our big brains came about as the
result of an evolutionary accident. Like the horns of the Irish Elk, like the
tail of the peacock, they're the result of sexual selection.
Bipedalism made human courtship... very complicated... as described in Elaine
Morgan's _The Descent of Woman_.
It could be that other intelligent species are, like ourselves, *flawed*
species. Species that are in a serious disequilibrium with their environment and
between their members, even before the effects of disproportionate technical
power enter the picture.
With multiple independent political units, instead of one World Government, it
can happen that a necessity is seen, and the appropriate course of action is
technically feasible, and yet we cannot act on it - because while one polity can
act, it cannot compel the other polities to cooperate.
And, yet, those who say that a World Government will likely become a world
dictatorship, stifling progress forever, are probably right. The solution is not
simple.
John Savard
The Zygon
2018-03-05 03:07:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Post by David Goldfarb
On my bad days, I think that chance is
reasonably large, but that the *time* in which technical civilization
can exist is short, because intelligent life invariably destroys
its environment and itself. For example, any intelligent life based
around carbon and water (as we are) will inevitably live on a planet
with fossil hydrocarbons, which become a tempting source of energy.
And if that creates a runaway greenhouse, well --
Not every civilization is doomed to be stupid or unlucky. On another planet, the
equivalent of World War II might have left *only* democracies among the
industrialized nations, instead of having Stalin's Russia around... hence, no
worries about nuclear war.
And we have atomic energy to indulge ourselves with without filling the air with
carbon dioxide.
Thus, even if we don't survive, survival was an option for some of the races out
there.
Because technology wasn't going to result immediately from having big brains,
and big brains have a large metabolic cost, our big brains came about as the
result of an evolutionary accident. Like the horns of the Irish Elk, like the
tail of the peacock, they're the result of sexual selection.
Bipedalism made human courtship... very complicated... as described in Elaine
Morgan's _The Descent of Woman_.
It could be that other intelligent species are, like ourselves, *flawed*
species. Species that are in a serious disequilibrium with their environment and
between their members, even before the effects of disproportionate technical
power enter the picture.
With multiple independent political units, instead of one World Government, it
can happen that a necessity is seen, and the appropriate course of action is
technically feasible, and yet we cannot act on it - because while one polity can
act, it cannot compel the other polities to cooperate.
And, yet, those who say that a World Government will likely become a world
dictatorship, stifling progress forever, are probably right. The solution is not
simple.
John Savard
Yes. One speculation I have read which I like is the one which says that in evolutionary terms, intelligence is a trap. That intelligent species are quite likely to kill themselves off because they become too successful and crash their ecologies.

The other way in which they crash, of course, is by war. They speculate that a species which is not aggressive enough will be destroyed by others - assuming that its adaption is as generalized as humans. And if it is aggressive enough, it would be too aggressive for technological civilization. The jury is out as to whether we will survive either of these traps.
Greg Goss
2018-03-04 03:13:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Goldfarb
For example, any intelligent life based
around carbon and water (as we are) will inevitably live on a planet
with fossil hydrocarbons, which become a tempting source of energy.
And if that creates a runaway greenhouse, well --
Of course I should not be a carbon chauvinist, but I don't know enough
about any other way of putting life together to speculate for them.
I wonder if coal is inevitable? I've been told that trees evolved the
structural compounds that let them reach for the sky long before
bacteria evolved the ability to break down those compounds. So the
dead wood just piled up and got buried instead of rotting.

If the bacteria got luckier in their evolution, then the wood would
rot before it had time to get buried.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
Leo Sgouros
2018-03-04 19:30:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Goldfarb
Post by The Zygon
I have heard several theories as to why we have had no evidence of ET
civilization. The simplest and the one which seems most persuasive to
me is that technological ET civilizations which we could detect are
extremely rare and there is none within the range that we are able to
detect.
I agree with that. You've probably heard of the Drake Equation, which
attempts to capture all of the factors leading to intelligence with
technical civilization, to work out the number of such civilizations
in our galaxy.
The equation includes some parameters which are known to be large
(the number of stars in the galaxy, the number of years in the age
of the universe) and others that are completely unknown, but are
potentially quite small (the proportion of life-bearing planets
on which that life achieves sapience). Since it multiplies together
large factors with ones that might or might not be small, most
likely the solution to the equation is either very large -- Isaac
Asimov once estimated some numbers and came out with one on the
order of 10^8 -- or else very small, much smaller than one; it is
unlikely that it just happens to be on the order of 10^0 or 10^1.
Now, it's tempting to consider that our own existence means that
the lower bound is in fact 10^0. But that's wrong: it could be
that the solution is in fact very small, 10^-3 or even 10^-6. It
could be that you would have to search a thousand galaxies to find
one with intelligent life. And the Milky Way just happens to be
that one.
On my good days, I think that the chance of life developing intelligence
is simply very very low. On my bad days, I think that chance is
reasonably large, but that the *time* in which technical civilization
can exist is short, because intelligent life invariably destroys
its environment and itself.
You must have a different definition of "intelligent life" than I do!
Post by David Goldfarb
For example, any intelligent life based
around carbon and water (as we are) will inevitably live on a planet
with fossil hydrocarbons, which become a tempting source of energy.
And if that creates a runaway greenhouse, well --
Of course I should not be a carbon chauvinist, but I don't know enough
about any other way of putting life together to speculate for them.
--
| 'People are stupid.'" -- Ted Faber
Quadibloc
2018-03-06 00:37:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Think clever life, as opposed to wise life.
Lynn McGuire
2018-03-06 23:19:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Quadibloc
Think clever life, as opposed to wise life.
Dude, feel free to quote a minimum of what you are replying to.

Lynn
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-03-06 23:14:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Think clever life, as opposed to wise life.
Dude, feel free to quote a minimum of what you are replying to.
This is Quaddie. Neither think, nor clever, nor wise is within his
ability. Life is arguable.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Christian Weisgerber
2018-03-03 21:30:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Zygon
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous scientist once said that physical phenomena are either unique or there are lots of them. Given that most rationalists today assume (or at minimum, grant as a working hypothesis) that we are not unique, what explains the fact that we are not awash in signals of ET civilization?
The state of SETI appears to be rather... basic.

I'll quote you this sobering section from a paper on Tabby's Star:

| 2.5. Radio SETI
|
| The Allen Telescope (SETI Institute) performed a series of KIC
| 8462852 radio observations during the Elsie dimming event. These
| were subsequent to the observations in 2015 (Harp et al. 2016).
| From 2017 July 8 through 2017 August 8, 1022 separate 92-s observations
| were performed which resulted in scanning 1419 MHz to 4303 MHz for
| radio signals. No narrow-band radio signals were found at a level
| of 180–300 Jy in a 1 Hz channel, or medium-band signals above 10
| Jy in a 100 kHz channel, which would correspond to transmitters at
| the distance of KIC 8462852 having effective isotropic radiated
| power (EIRP) of (4–7) × 10^15 W and 10^19 W for the narrow-band and
| moderate-band observations. While orders of magnitude more powerful
| than the planetary radar transmitter at Arecibo Observatory, 2 ×
| 10^13 W EIRP, the actual power requirements would be greatly reduced
| if emissions were beamed directly at Earth.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1801.00732.pdf

In plain English, this means we now know that
(1) there is no ginormous interstellar radio beacon being operated
in that system, and
(2) nobody there was beaming a powerful signal right at us when we
checked.

Radio chatter of an advanced civilization? No idea, we can't tell
at that distance.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber ***@mips.inka.de
Michael F. Stemper
2018-03-03 22:49:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Zygon
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous scientist once said that physical phenomena are either unique or there are lots of them. Given that most rationalists today assume (or at minimum, grant as a working hypothesis) that we are not unique, what explains the fact that we are not awash in signals of ET civilization?
I have heard several theories as to why we have had no evidence of ET civilization. The simplest and the one which seems most persuasive to me is that technological ET civilizations which we could detect are extremely rare and there is none within the range that we are able to detect.
I would like to hear from others. Which theories have you heard and which do you find credible?
Several reasons come to mind, some of which have already been
mentioned:

1. Space is big. Really big. Even if there are a million
technological civilizations in the Milky Way, that leaves
about 8 million cubic parsecs for each (assuming a
galactic disk with r = 50 kpc and h = 1 kpc). In other
words, a cube just about 200 pc on a side.
2. Some searching showed me that 100 kW is the output of a
fairly high-powered radio station. If that power is put
out completely symmetrically, at 1 AU, its strength will
be down to about 4E-19 W/m^2. (See the _Venus Equilateral_
stories.) We won't even talk about how faint it'll be by
the time it's spread out over a sphere 1 pc in radius. And,
as somebody else mentioned, the Earth is very close to
something that's pumping out roughly 10^26 W.
3. Humans are improving antenna designs so that all that
power isn't sent into space, but aimed towards where an
audience might be. It's reasonable to expect that these
other civilizations would do so as well, since energy
isn't free.
4. Ever increasing amounts of communication are being
converted to point-to-point: cell tower repeaters,
optical fiber, and so on. Again, it's highly likely
that other civilizations would do this (or equivalent)
for the same reasons that we are.

Bottom line: It appears that the amount of time that (really
faint) signals are inadvertently sent into space will be under
two centuries for us.

Another possibility is that they're all afraid of the Berserkers
(Saberhagen) or Inhibitors (Reynolds).
--
Michael F. Stemper
There's no "me" in "team". There's no "us" in "team", either.
Michael F. Stemper
2018-03-03 23:34:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Michael F. Stemper
1. Space is big. Really big. Even if there are a million
   technological civilizations in the Milky Way, that leaves
   about 8 million cubic parsecs for each (assuming a
   galactic disk with r = 50 kpc and h = 1 kpc). In other
   words, a cube just about 200 pc on a side.
Sorry, wrong galaxy. 15 kpc is a better radius for the old Milky Way
than is 50 kpc. That only(!) leaves about 700,000 cubic parsecs for
each civilization, which is a cube a mere 90 pc on a side.

My bad.
--
Michael F. Stemper
This email is to be read by its intended recipient only. Any other party
reading is required by the EULA to send me $500.00.
Butch Malahide
2018-03-04 08:22:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous scientist once said that physical phenomena are either unique or there are lots of them. Given that most rationalists today assume (or at minimum, grant as a working hypothesis) that we are not unique, [. . .]
They do? With no evidence? Sounds like a religion to me. And you say the
believers are called "rationalists"?
David Johnston
2018-03-04 09:04:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Butch Malahide
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous scientist once said that physical phenomena are either unique or there are lots of them. Given that most rationalists today assume (or at minimum, grant as a working hypothesis) that we are not unique, [. . .]
They do? With no evidence?
No. There's evidence. We first of all know that life is possible on a
planet with the right characteristics. And we know that planets are
very common among any stars that are close enough to study. And we know
that there are lot of stars out there.
The Zygon
2018-03-05 03:16:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Butch Malahide
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous scientist once said that physical phenomena are either unique or there are lots of them. Given that most rationalists today assume (or at minimum, grant as a working hypothesis) that we are not unique, [. . .]
They do? With no evidence? Sounds like a religion to me. And you say the
believers are called "rationalists"?
What precisely would you call evidence that we are not unique other than another technological species? And how can any specific single idea constitute a religion?

And yes, the idea that we are not unique is the best working assumption on the subject since most true statements which can be made about us are demonstrably not only true for us.
Patok
2018-03-05 14:36:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Zygon
Post by Butch Malahide
Post by The Zygon
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous scientist once said that
physical phenomena are either unique or there are lots of them. Given
that most rationalists today assume (or at minimum, grant as a working
hypothesis) that we are not unique, [. . .]
They do? With no evidence? Sounds like a religion to me. And you say the
believers are called "rationalists"?
What precisely would you call evidence that we are not unique other than
another technological species? And how can any specific single idea
constitute a religion?
And yes, the idea that we are not unique is the best working assumption on
the subject since most true statements which can be made about us are
demonstrably not only true for us.
Following the scientific method, we should formulate a theory that a) is
supported by facts as we know them and b) is falsifiable.

Such a theory is "Aliens don't exist" (We're unique).

It is supported by facts as we know them, and it is easily falsifiable should
aliens appear and present themselves.
--
"Питат ли ме дей зората - шат на патката главата."
The Zygon
2018-03-06 01:17:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Patok
Post by The Zygon
Post by Butch Malahide
Post by The Zygon
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous scientist once said that
physical phenomena are either unique or there are lots of them. Given
that most rationalists today assume (or at minimum, grant as a working
hypothesis) that we are not unique, [. . .]
They do? With no evidence? Sounds like a religion to me. And you say the
believers are called "rationalists"?
What precisely would you call evidence that we are not unique other than
another technological species? And how can any specific single idea
constitute a religion?
And yes, the idea that we are not unique is the best working assumption on
the subject since most true statements which can be made about us are
demonstrably not only true for us.
Following the scientific method, we should formulate a theory that a) is
supported by facts as we know them and b) is falsifiable.
Such a theory is "Aliens don't exist" (We're unique).
It is supported by facts as we know them, and it is easily falsifiable should
aliens appear and present themselves.
--
"Питат ли ме дей зората - шат на патката главата."
==
Can you state one fact which supports the claim, "Aliens do not exist?"

You have no idea how easily falsifiable such claim is. That fact that you can easily state the state of affairs which would render it falsified is no indication whatsoever of how easy it is to establish that such a state of affairs is or is not the case.
J. Clarke
2018-03-06 03:06:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 17:17:26 -0800 (PST), The Zygon
Post by The Zygon
Post by Patok
Post by The Zygon
Post by Butch Malahide
Post by The Zygon
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous scientist once said that
physical phenomena are either unique or there are lots of them. Given
that most rationalists today assume (or at minimum, grant as a working
hypothesis) that we are not unique, [. . .]
They do? With no evidence? Sounds like a religion to me. And you say the
believers are called "rationalists"?
What precisely would you call evidence that we are not unique other than
another technological species? And how can any specific single idea
constitute a religion?
And yes, the idea that we are not unique is the best working assumption on
the subject since most true statements which can be made about us are
demonstrably not only true for us.
Following the scientific method, we should formulate a theory that a) is
supported by facts as we know them and b) is falsifiable.
Such a theory is "Aliens don't exist" (We're unique).
It is supported by facts as we know them, and it is easily falsifiable should
aliens appear and present themselves.
--
"????? ?? ?? ??? ?????? - ??? ?? ??????? ???????."
==
Can you state one fact which supports the claim, "Aliens do not exist?"
It's called the "null hypothesis".
Post by The Zygon
You have no idea how easily falsifiable such claim is.
I'm pretty sure a Klingon Battlecruiser appearing in orbit around our
planet and blowing our military to Kingdom Come would do it.
Post by The Zygon
That fact that you can easily state the state of affairs which would render it falsified is no indication whatsoever of how easy it is to establish that such a state of affairs is or is not the case.
David Johnston
2018-03-06 04:17:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 17:17:26 -0800 (PST), The Zygon
Post by The Zygon
Post by Patok
Post by The Zygon
Post by Butch Malahide
Post by The Zygon
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous scientist once said that
physical phenomena are either unique or there are lots of them. Given
that most rationalists today assume (or at minimum, grant as a working
hypothesis) that we are not unique, [. . .]
They do? With no evidence? Sounds like a religion to me. And you say the
believers are called "rationalists"?
What precisely would you call evidence that we are not unique other than
another technological species? And how can any specific single idea
constitute a religion?
And yes, the idea that we are not unique is the best working assumption on
the subject since most true statements which can be made about us are
demonstrably not only true for us.
Following the scientific method, we should formulate a theory that a) is
supported by facts as we know them and b) is falsifiable.
Such a theory is "Aliens don't exist" (We're unique).
It is supported by facts as we know them, and it is easily falsifiable should
aliens appear and present themselves.
--
"????? ?? ?? ??? ?????? - ??? ?? ??????? ???????."
==
Can you state one fact which supports the claim, "Aliens do not exist?"
It's called the "null hypothesis".
Post by The Zygon
You have no idea how easily falsifiable such claim is.
I'm pretty sure a Klingon Battlecruiser appearing in orbit around our
planet and blowing our military to Kingdom Come would do it.
It would but that would require aliens to not just exist, but to have a
fast and economic means of interstellar travel which does not strike me
as so easy.
The Zygon
2018-03-06 07:02:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by The Zygon
Post by Patok
Post by The Zygon
Post by Butch Malahide
Post by The Zygon
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous scientist once said that
physical phenomena are either unique or there are lots of them. Given
that most rationalists today assume (or at minimum, grant as a working
hypothesis) that we are not unique, [. . .]
They do? With no evidence? Sounds like a religion to me. And you say the
believers are called "rationalists"?
What precisely would you call evidence that we are not unique other than
another technological species? And how can any specific single idea
constitute a religion?
And yes, the idea that we are not unique is the best working assumption on
the subject since most true statements which can be made about us are
demonstrably not only true for us.
Following the scientific method, we should formulate a theory that a) is
supported by facts as we know them and b) is falsifiable.
Such a theory is "Aliens don't exist" (We're unique).
It is supported by facts as we know them, and it is easily falsifiable should
aliens appear and present themselves.
--
"????? ?? ?? ??? ?????? - ??? ?? ??????? ???????."
==
Can you state one fact which supports the claim, "Aliens do not exist?"
It's called the "null hypothesis".
Post by The Zygon
You have no idea how easily falsifiable such claim is.
I'm pretty sure a Klingon Battlecruiser appearing in orbit around our
planet and blowing our military to Kingdom Come would do it.
Post by The Zygon
That fact that you can easily state the state of affairs which would render it falsified is no indication whatsoever of how easy it is to establish that such a state of affairs is or is not the case.
1. A hypothesis by its nature cannot be evidence of anything.

2. It can't be "easy" for an imaginary vessel of an imaginary species to appear in the skies above earth.
J. Clarke
2018-03-06 11:39:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 23:02:20 -0800 (PST), The Zygon
Post by The Zygon
Post by J. Clarke
Post by The Zygon
Post by Patok
Post by The Zygon
Post by Butch Malahide
Post by The Zygon
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous scientist once said that
physical phenomena are either unique or there are lots of them. Given
that most rationalists today assume (or at minimum, grant as a working
hypothesis) that we are not unique, [. . .]
They do? With no evidence? Sounds like a religion to me. And you say the
believers are called "rationalists"?
What precisely would you call evidence that we are not unique other than
another technological species? And how can any specific single idea
constitute a religion?
And yes, the idea that we are not unique is the best working assumption on
the subject since most true statements which can be made about us are
demonstrably not only true for us.
Following the scientific method, we should formulate a theory that a) is
supported by facts as we know them and b) is falsifiable.
Such a theory is "Aliens don't exist" (We're unique).
It is supported by facts as we know them, and it is easily falsifiable should
aliens appear and present themselves.
--
"????? ?? ?? ??? ?????? - ??? ?? ??????? ???????."
==
Can you state one fact which supports the claim, "Aliens do not exist?"
It's called the "null hypothesis".
Post by The Zygon
You have no idea how easily falsifiable such claim is.
I'm pretty sure a Klingon Battlecruiser appearing in orbit around our
planet and blowing our military to Kingdom Come would do it.
Post by The Zygon
That fact that you can easily state the state of affairs which would render it falsified is no indication whatsoever of how easy it is to establish that such a state of affairs is or is not the case.
1. A hypothesis by its nature cannot be evidence of anything.
Nobody stated that it was. It was presented as a "theory" when I'm
sure the intent was "assumption to be tested".
Post by The Zygon
2. It can't be "easy" for an imaginary vessel of an imaginary species to appear in the skies above earth.
Your opinion concerning the cost of interstellar travel has no bearing
on the efficacy of such appearance as falsification of the hypothesis.
The Zygon
2018-03-07 00:04:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 23:02:20 -0800 (PST), The Zygon
Post by The Zygon
Post by J. Clarke
Post by The Zygon
Post by Patok
Post by The Zygon
Post by Butch Malahide
Post by The Zygon
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous scientist once said that
physical phenomena are either unique or there are lots of them. Given
that most rationalists today assume (or at minimum, grant as a working
hypothesis) that we are not unique, [. . .]
They do? With no evidence? Sounds like a religion to me. And you say the
believers are called "rationalists"?
What precisely would you call evidence that we are not unique other than
another technological species? And how can any specific single idea
constitute a religion?
And yes, the idea that we are not unique is the best working assumption on
the subject since most true statements which can be made about us are
demonstrably not only true for us.
Following the scientific method, we should formulate a theory that a) is
supported by facts as we know them and b) is falsifiable.
Such a theory is "Aliens don't exist" (We're unique).
It is supported by facts as we know them, and it is easily falsifiable should
aliens appear and present themselves.
--
"????? ?? ?? ??? ?????? - ??? ?? ??????? ???????."
==
Can you state one fact which supports the claim, "Aliens do not exist?"
It's called the "null hypothesis".
Post by The Zygon
You have no idea how easily falsifiable such claim is.
I'm pretty sure a Klingon Battlecruiser appearing in orbit around our
planet and blowing our military to Kingdom Come would do it.
Post by The Zygon
That fact that you can easily state the state of affairs which would render it falsified is no indication whatsoever of how easy it is to establish that such a state of affairs is or is not the case.
1. A hypothesis by its nature cannot be evidence of anything.
Nobody stated that it was. It was presented as a "theory" when I'm
sure the intent was "assumption to be tested".
Post by The Zygon
2. It can't be "easy" for an imaginary vessel of an imaginary species to appear in the skies above earth.
Your opinion concerning the cost of interstellar travel has no bearing
on the efficacy of such appearance as falsification of the hypothesis.
It is objectively not easy compared to anything we know about. We have no idea how to do it.
J. Clarke
2018-03-07 03:05:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 6 Mar 2018 16:04:08 -0800 (PST), The Zygon
Post by The Zygon
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 23:02:20 -0800 (PST), The Zygon
Post by The Zygon
Post by J. Clarke
Post by The Zygon
Post by Patok
Post by The Zygon
Post by Butch Malahide
Post by The Zygon
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous scientist once said that
physical phenomena are either unique or there are lots of them. Given
that most rationalists today assume (or at minimum, grant as a working
hypothesis) that we are not unique, [. . .]
They do? With no evidence? Sounds like a religion to me. And you say the
believers are called "rationalists"?
What precisely would you call evidence that we are not unique other than
another technological species? And how can any specific single idea
constitute a religion?
And yes, the idea that we are not unique is the best working assumption on
the subject since most true statements which can be made about us are
demonstrably not only true for us.
Following the scientific method, we should formulate a theory that a) is
supported by facts as we know them and b) is falsifiable.
Such a theory is "Aliens don't exist" (We're unique).
It is supported by facts as we know them, and it is easily falsifiable should
aliens appear and present themselves.
--
"????? ?? ?? ??? ?????? - ??? ?? ??????? ???????."
==
Can you state one fact which supports the claim, "Aliens do not exist?"
It's called the "null hypothesis".
Post by The Zygon
You have no idea how easily falsifiable such claim is.
I'm pretty sure a Klingon Battlecruiser appearing in orbit around our
planet and blowing our military to Kingdom Come would do it.
Post by The Zygon
That fact that you can easily state the state of affairs which would render it falsified is no indication whatsoever of how easy it is to establish that such a state of affairs is or is not the case.
1. A hypothesis by its nature cannot be evidence of anything.
Nobody stated that it was. It was presented as a "theory" when I'm
sure the intent was "assumption to be tested".
Post by The Zygon
2. It can't be "easy" for an imaginary vessel of an imaginary species to appear in the skies above earth.
Your opinion concerning the cost of interstellar travel has no bearing
on the efficacy of such appearance as falsification of the hypothesis.
It is objectively not easy compared to anything we know about. We have no idea how to do it.
We don't have to, that is ET's problem to solve. And you seem to be
conflating ease of transport with ease of falsification.
David Johnston
2018-03-07 03:56:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 6 Mar 2018 16:04:08 -0800 (PST), The Zygon
Post by The Zygon
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 5 Mar 2018 23:02:20 -0800 (PST), The Zygon
Post by The Zygon
Post by J. Clarke
Post by The Zygon
Post by Patok
Post by The Zygon
Post by Butch Malahide
Post by The Zygon
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous scientist once said that
physical phenomena are either unique or there are lots of them. Given
that most rationalists today assume (or at minimum, grant as a working
hypothesis) that we are not unique, [. . .]
They do? With no evidence? Sounds like a religion to me. And you say the
believers are called "rationalists"?
What precisely would you call evidence that we are not unique other than
another technological species? And how can any specific single idea
constitute a religion?
And yes, the idea that we are not unique is the best working assumption on
the subject since most true statements which can be made about us are
demonstrably not only true for us.
Following the scientific method, we should formulate a theory that a) is
supported by facts as we know them and b) is falsifiable.
Such a theory is "Aliens don't exist" (We're unique).
It is supported by facts as we know them, and it is easily falsifiable should
aliens appear and present themselves.
--
"????? ?? ?? ??? ?????? - ??? ?? ??????? ???????."
==
Can you state one fact which supports the claim, "Aliens do not exist?"
It's called the "null hypothesis".
Post by The Zygon
You have no idea how easily falsifiable such claim is.
I'm pretty sure a Klingon Battlecruiser appearing in orbit around our
planet and blowing our military to Kingdom Come would do it.
Post by The Zygon
That fact that you can easily state the state of affairs which would render it falsified is no indication whatsoever of how easy it is to establish that such a state of affairs is or is not the case.
1. A hypothesis by its nature cannot be evidence of anything.
Nobody stated that it was. It was presented as a "theory" when I'm
sure the intent was "assumption to be tested".
Post by The Zygon
2. It can't be "easy" for an imaginary vessel of an imaginary species to appear in the skies above earth.
Your opinion concerning the cost of interstellar travel has no bearing
on the efficacy of such appearance as falsification of the hypothesis.
It is objectively not easy compared to anything we know about. We have no idea how to do it.
We don't have to, that is ET's problem to solve. And you seem to be
conflating ease of transport with ease of falsification.
Seems to me that if falsification is something you can't make happen,
that's hard.
The Zygon
2018-03-06 07:03:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
Post by The Zygon
Post by Patok
Post by The Zygon
Post by Butch Malahide
Post by The Zygon
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous scientist once said that
physical phenomena are either unique or there are lots of them. Given
that most rationalists today assume (or at minimum, grant as a working
hypothesis) that we are not unique, [. . .]
They do? With no evidence? Sounds like a religion to me. And you say the
believers are called "rationalists"?
What precisely would you call evidence that we are not unique other than
another technological species? And how can any specific single idea
constitute a religion?
And yes, the idea that we are not unique is the best working assumption on
the subject since most true statements which can be made about us are
demonstrably not only true for us.
Following the scientific method, we should formulate a theory that a) is
supported by facts as we know them and b) is falsifiable.
Such a theory is "Aliens don't exist" (We're unique).
It is supported by facts as we know them, and it is easily falsifiable should
aliens appear and present themselves.
--
"????? ?? ?? ??? ?????? - ??? ?? ??????? ???????."
==
Can you state one fact which supports the claim, "Aliens do not exist?"
It's called the "null hypothesis".
Post by The Zygon
You have no idea how easily falsifiable such claim is.
I'm pretty sure a Klingon Battlecruiser appearing in orbit around our
planet and blowing our military to Kingdom Come would do it.
Post by The Zygon
That fact that you can easily state the state of affairs which would render it falsified is no indication whatsoever of how easy it is to establish that such a state of affairs is or is not the case.
It is demonstrably not easy when compared to anything we can do.
Default User
2018-03-06 18:49:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Zygon
Post by The Zygon
Post by The Zygon
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous scientist once
said that >>> physical phenomena are either unique or there are
lots of them. Given >>> that most rationalists today assume (or at
minimum, grant as a working >>> hypothesis) that we are not unique,
[. . .] >> They do? With no evidence? Sounds like a religion to me.
And you say the >> believers are called "rationalists"?
Post by The Zygon
What precisely would you call evidence that we are not unique
other than another technological species? And how can any
specific single idea constitute a religion?
And yes, the idea that we are not unique is the best working
assumption on the subject since most true statements which can be
made about us are demonstrably not only true for us.
Following the scientific method, we should formulate a theory that
a) is supported by facts as we know them and b) is falsifiable.
Such a theory is "Aliens don't exist" (We're unique).
It is supported by facts as we know them, and it is easily
falsifiable should aliens appear and present themselves.
Can you state one fact which supports the claim, "Aliens do not exist?"
An application of Occam's Razor suggests that as the simplist model
that fits the known facts. We haven't even found life anywhere besides
Earth.

If you search your backyard for treasure and don't find any, which is
the simpler?

1. There is no treasure to find.

2. There is treasure but it's hidden better than expected.


Brian
David Johnston
2018-03-06 19:10:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Default User
Post by The Zygon
Post by The Zygon
Post by The Zygon
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous scientist once
said that >>> physical phenomena are either unique or there are
lots of them. Given >>> that most rationalists today assume (or at
minimum, grant as a working >>> hypothesis) that we are not unique,
[. . .] >> They do? With no evidence? Sounds like a religion to me.
And you say the >> believers are called "rationalists"?
Post by The Zygon
What precisely would you call evidence that we are not unique
other than another technological species? And how can any
specific single idea constitute a religion?
And yes, the idea that we are not unique is the best working
assumption on the subject since most true statements which can be
made about us are demonstrably not only true for us.
Following the scientific method, we should formulate a theory that
a) is supported by facts as we know them and b) is falsifiable.
Such a theory is "Aliens don't exist" (We're unique).
It is supported by facts as we know them, and it is easily
falsifiable should aliens appear and present themselves.
Can you state one fact which supports the claim, "Aliens do not exist?"
An application of Occam's Razor suggests that as the simplist model
that fits the known facts. We haven't even found life anywhere besides
Earth.
We haven't had the opportunity to look for life anywhere besides Earth,
the moon and Mars.
Post by Default User
If you search your backyard for treasure and don't find any, which is
the simpler?
1. There is no treasure to find.
2. There is treasure but it's hidden better than expected.
"I didn't find treasure in my backyard so I will assume that there's no
buried treasure anywhere in the world" is not sound reasoning.
Default User
2018-03-06 19:39:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
"I didn't find treasure in my backyard so I will assume that there's
no buried treasure anywhere in the world" is not sound reasoning.
Why?


Brian
David Johnston
2018-03-06 20:10:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
"I didn't find treasure in my backyard so I will assume that there's
no buried treasure anywhere in the world" is not sound reasoning.
Why?
Inadequate sample size. Given that we know that "treasure" exists, and
can be "buried", searching your "backyard" and not finding any
"treasure" only tells you about your "backyard" not about the absolute
possibility of "treasure" elsewhere.

Occam's Razor doesn't really work like that. It would actually be more
complicated to explain why life only exists in one place in a radius of
46 billion light years than it would be to just assume that it exists in
multiple places but so sparsely as to be outside of the range of our
ability to look for it...particularly given how limited that range is.

Of course it's also true that if alien life exists but we'll never know
about it, it's pretty much the same for us as if it didn't exist at all.
Default User
2018-03-06 22:53:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
"I didn't find treasure in my backyard so I will assume that
there's no buried treasure anywhere in the world" is not sound
reasoning.
Why?
Inadequate sample size. Given that we know that "treasure" exists,
and can be "buried", searching your "backyard" and not finding any
"treasure" only tells you about your "backyard" not about the
absolute possibility of "treasure" elsewhere.
But that's assuming that you do know that treasure exists. You have to
work with the data youhave. If the only backyard you've seen has no
treasure, you wouldn't assume that other yards do. Or would you?

You're adding data about other treasure.
Post by David Johnston
Occam's Razor doesn't really work like that. It would actually be
more complicated to explain why life only exists in one place in a
radius of 46 billion light years than it would be to just assume that
it exists in multiple places but so sparsely as to be outside of the
range of our ability to look for it...particularly given how limited
that range is.
I don't agree. That life exists nowhere else fits the data. There is
simply no data supporting other life. You're adding "well it might
exist outside of our observable space", but that's more complicated
than "doesn't exist outside of Earth period."

I can use Occam's razor to lop off the hypothetical other areas without
having the model violate what we know. We don't know enough about how
intelligence or even life to say that a single techological species is
less likely.


Brian
David Johnston
2018-03-06 23:24:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Default User
Post by David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
"I didn't find treasure in my backyard so I will assume that
there's no buried treasure anywhere in the world" is not sound
reasoning.
Why?
Inadequate sample size. Given that we know that "treasure" exists,
and can be "buried", searching your "backyard" and not finding any
"treasure" only tells you about your "backyard" not about the
absolute possibility of "treasure" elsewhere.
But that's assuming that you do know that treasure exists. You have to
work with the data youhave. If the only backyard you've seen has no
treasure, you wouldn't assume that other yards do. Or would you?
You're adding data about other treasure.
Post by David Johnston
Occam's Razor doesn't really work like that. It would actually be
more complicated to explain why life only exists in one place in a
radius of 46 billion light years than it would be to just assume that
it exists in multiple places but so sparsely as to be outside of the
range of our ability to look for it...particularly given how limited
that range is.
I don't agree. That life exists nowhere else fits the data.
If life did exist elsewhere there would almost certainly be no data
anyway, making a lack of data less than compelling.

There is
Post by Default User
simply no data supporting other life. You're adding "well it might
exist outside of our observable space", but that's more complicated
than "doesn't exist outside of Earth period."
No. It isn't. Knowing as we now do that there are plenty of roughly
earthlike planets it's actually more complicated to postulate that not a
single world orbiting some 100 octillian stars other than our own is
home to life.
Default User
2018-03-06 23:51:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
If life did exist elsewhere there would almost certainly be no data
anyway, making a lack of data less than compelling.
What does "compelling" have to do with it? Does a model with no other
intelligent, technological species fit the data? I say yes.
Post by David Johnston
No. It isn't. Knowing as we now do that there are plenty of roughly
earthlike planets it's actually more complicated to postulate that
not a single world orbiting some 100 octillian stars other than our
own is home to life.
That's not true. You're assuming you know what these probablities are.
You don't. There is data that we have. You're trying to extrapolate
more data from the little that we have. A model that doesn't include
other life, intelligent or otherwise, fits the facts that are present.
David Johnston
2018-03-07 00:30:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Default User
Post by David Johnston
If life did exist elsewhere there would almost certainly be no data
anyway, making a lack of data less than compelling.
What does "compelling" have to do with it? Does a model with no other
intelligent, technological species fit the data? I say yes.
Post by David Johnston
No. It isn't. Knowing as we now do that there are plenty of roughly
earthlike planets it's actually more complicated to postulate that
not a single world orbiting some 100 octillian stars other than our
own is home to life.
That's not true. You're assuming you know what these probablities are.
No. I'm not. I just know that whatever they are, they are greater than
zero.
Post by Default User
You don't. There is data that we have. You're trying to extrapolate
more data from the little that we have. A model that doesn't include
other life, intelligent or otherwise, fits the facts that are present.
That is not a point I am arguing. The point I am arguing is the
applicability of Occams Razor.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-03-06 23:45:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by Default User
Post by David Johnston
If life did exist elsewhere there would almost certainly be no
data anyway, making a lack of data less than compelling.
What does "compelling" have to do with it? Does a model with no
other intelligent, technological species fit the data? I say
yes.
Post by David Johnston
No. It isn't. Knowing as we now do that there are plenty of
roughly earthlike planets it's actually more complicated to
postulate that not a single world orbiting some 100 octillian
stars other than our own is home to life.
That's not true. You're assuming you know what these
probablities are.
No. I'm not. I just know that whatever they are, they are
greater than zero.
The probability that there is no other life in the universe is also
greater than zero.

Do feel free to propose a test by which we can distinguish between
those two probabilities. (I expect that, if you can do so, there's
a Nobel Prize in it for you.)
Post by David Johnston
Post by Default User
You don't. There is data that we have. You're trying to
extrapolate more data from the little that we have. A model
that doesn't include other life, intelligent or otherwise, fits
the facts that are present.
That is not a point I am arguing. The point I am arguing is the
applicability of Occams Razor.
And you're failing in that, too.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
The Zygon
2018-03-07 01:00:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by David Johnston
Post by Default User
Post by David Johnston
If life did exist elsewhere there would almost certainly be no
data anyway, making a lack of data less than compelling.
What does "compelling" have to do with it? Does a model with no
other intelligent, technological species fit the data? I say
yes.
Post by David Johnston
No. It isn't. Knowing as we now do that there are plenty of
roughly earthlike planets it's actually more complicated to
postulate that not a single world orbiting some 100 octillian
stars other than our own is home to life.
That's not true. You're assuming you know what these
probablities are.
No. I'm not. I just know that whatever they are, they are
greater than zero.
The probability that there is no other life in the universe is also
greater than zero.
Do feel free to propose a test by which we can distinguish between
those two probabilities. (I expect that, if you can do so, there's
a Nobel Prize in it for you.)
Post by David Johnston
Post by Default User
You don't. There is data that we have. You're trying to
extrapolate more data from the little that we have. A model
that doesn't include other life, intelligent or otherwise, fits
the facts that are present.
That is not a point I am arguing. The point I am arguing is the
applicability of Occams Razor.
And you're failing in that, too.
--
Terry Austin
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
But why would he need to do that? He is not making any claims about the actual presence of life elsewhere in the universe. Do you understand the difference between an actual belief and a working assumption?
J. Clarke
2018-03-07 03:07:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 6 Mar 2018 17:00:35 -0800 (PST), The Zygon
Post by The Zygon
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by David Johnston
Post by Default User
Post by David Johnston
If life did exist elsewhere there would almost certainly be no
data anyway, making a lack of data less than compelling.
What does "compelling" have to do with it? Does a model with no
other intelligent, technological species fit the data? I say
yes.
Post by David Johnston
No. It isn't. Knowing as we now do that there are plenty of
roughly earthlike planets it's actually more complicated to
postulate that not a single world orbiting some 100 octillian
stars other than our own is home to life.
That's not true. You're assuming you know what these
probablities are.
No. I'm not. I just know that whatever they are, they are
greater than zero.
The probability that there is no other life in the universe is also
greater than zero.
Do feel free to propose a test by which we can distinguish between
those two probabilities. (I expect that, if you can do so, there's
a Nobel Prize in it for you.)
Post by David Johnston
Post by Default User
You don't. There is data that we have. You're trying to
extrapolate more data from the little that we have. A model
that doesn't include other life, intelligent or otherwise, fits
the facts that are present.
That is not a point I am arguing. The point I am arguing is the
applicability of Occams Razor.
And you're failing in that, too.
--
Terry Austin
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
But why would he need to do that? He is not making any claims about the actual presence of life elsewhere in the universe. Do you understand the difference between an actual belief and a working assumption?
Zygon, say goodbye to your leg. Terry's about to rip it off and beat
you to death with it.
Ninapenda Jibini
2018-03-07 03:44:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 6 Mar 2018 17:00:35 -0800 (PST), The Zygon
On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 7:45:29 PM UTC-5, Jibini Kula
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by David Johnston
Post by Default User
Post by David Johnston
If life did exist elsewhere there would almost certainly
be no data anyway, making a lack of data less than
compelling.
What does "compelling" have to do with it? Does a model
with no other intelligent, technological species fit the
data? I say yes.
Post by David Johnston
No. It isn't. Knowing as we now do that there are plenty
of roughly earthlike planets it's actually more
complicated to postulate that not a single world orbiting
some 100 octillian stars other than our own is home to
life.
That's not true. You're assuming you know what these
probablities are.
No. I'm not. I just know that whatever they are, they are
greater than zero.
The probability that there is no other life in the universe is
also greater than zero.
Do feel free to propose a test by which we can distinguish
between those two probabilities. (I expect that, if you can do
so, there's a Nobel Prize in it for you.)
Post by David Johnston
Post by Default User
You don't. There is data that we have. You're trying to
extrapolate more data from the little that we have. A model
that doesn't include other life, intelligent or otherwise,
fits the facts that are present.
That is not a point I am arguing. The point I am arguing is
the applicability of Occams Razor.
And you're failing in that, too.
--
Terry Austin
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more
asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
But why would he need to do that? He is not making any claims
about the actual presence of life elsewhere in the universe. Do
you understand the difference between an actual belief and a
working assumption?
Zygon, say goodbye to your leg. Terry's about to rip it off and
beat you to death with it.
Not in the least. I'm going to goad him into doing that himself.
--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Titus G
2018-03-07 06:03:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 07/03/18 16:07, J. Clarke wrote:
snip
Post by J. Clarke
Zygon, say goodbye to your leg. Terry's about to rip it off and beat
you to death with it.
It is already in my kill file and that was before it agreed with
Fourbricks. For the past couple of days, the meme running through my
head has been that The Umbrella is never close to hand when needed. Not
just this thread.
Robert Carnegie
2018-03-07 03:14:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Zygon
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by David Johnston
Post by Default User
Post by David Johnston
If life did exist elsewhere there would almost certainly be no
data anyway, making a lack of data less than compelling.
What does "compelling" have to do with it? Does a model with no
other intelligent, technological species fit the data? I say
yes.
Post by David Johnston
No. It isn't. Knowing as we now do that there are plenty of
roughly earthlike planets it's actually more complicated to
postulate that not a single world orbiting some 100 octillian
stars other than our own is home to life.
That's not true. You're assuming you know what these
probablities are.
No. I'm not. I just know that whatever they are, they are
greater than zero.
The probability that there is no other life in the universe is also
greater than zero.
Do feel free to propose a test by which we can distinguish between
those two probabilities. (I expect that, if you can do so, there's
a Nobel Prize in it for you.)
Post by David Johnston
Post by Default User
You don't. There is data that we have. You're trying to
extrapolate more data from the little that we have. A model
that doesn't include other life, intelligent or otherwise, fits
the facts that are present.
That is not a point I am arguing. The point I am arguing is the
applicability of Occams Razor.
And you're failing in that, too.
--
Terry Austin
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
But why would he need to do that? He is not making any claims about the actual presence of life elsewhere in the universe. Do you understand the difference between an actual belief and a working assumption?
It will gratify Terry to a rather disturbing degree that
I undertake to tell you that he is, simply, a terrible troll,
an argumentative deceiver. Or, to put it otherwise, he is
an extraordinarily good one.

Whatever he just said to you, which I haven't looked at closely,
is probably intended only to provoke you, and nothing else.

Other members think there also is a reasonable person there.
Chained up in the basement, I suppose.
Ninapenda Jibini
2018-03-07 03:45:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Carnegie
On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 7:45:29 PM UTC-5, Jibini Kula
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by David Johnston
Post by Default User
Post by David Johnston
If life did exist elsewhere there would almost certainly
be no data anyway, making a lack of data less than
compelling.
What does "compelling" have to do with it? Does a model
with no other intelligent, technological species fit the
data? I say yes.
Post by David Johnston
No. It isn't. Knowing as we now do that there are plenty
of roughly earthlike planets it's actually more
complicated to postulate that not a single world orbiting
some 100 octillian stars other than our own is home to
life.
That's not true. You're assuming you know what these
probablities are.
No. I'm not. I just know that whatever they are, they are
greater than zero.
The probability that there is no other life in the universe
is also greater than zero.
Do feel free to propose a test by which we can distinguish
between those two probabilities. (I expect that, if you can
do so, there's a Nobel Prize in it for you.)
Post by David Johnston
Post by Default User
You don't. There is data that we have. You're trying to
extrapolate more data from the little that we have. A
model that doesn't include other life, intelligent or
otherwise, fits the facts that are present.
That is not a point I am arguing. The point I am arguing
is the applicability of Occams Razor.
And you're failing in that, too.
--
Terry Austin
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more
asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
But why would he need to do that? He is not making any claims
about the actual presence of life elsewhere in the universe.
Do you understand the difference between an actual belief and a
working assumption?
It will gratify Terry to a rather disturbing degree that
I undertake to tell you that he is, simply, a terrible troll,
an argumentative deceiver. Or, to put it otherwise, he is
an extraordinarily good one.
Whatever he just said to you, which I haven't looked at closely,
is probably intended only to provoke you, and nothing else.
Other members think there also is a reasonable person there.
Chained up in the basement, I suppose.
Let me introduce you to Bobbie, my biggest fan. He gets *real*
jealous wen I pay attention to other people. It makes him feels
small and unimportant.

But he *can't* help himself.
--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Ninapenda Jibini
2018-03-07 03:43:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 7:45:29 PM UTC-5, Jibini Kula
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by David Johnston
Post by Default User
Post by David Johnston
If life did exist elsewhere there would almost certainly be
no data anyway, making a lack of data less than compelling.
What does "compelling" have to do with it? Does a model with
no other intelligent, technological species fit the data? I
say yes.
Post by David Johnston
No. It isn't. Knowing as we now do that there are plenty
of roughly earthlike planets it's actually more complicated
to postulate that not a single world orbiting some 100
octillian stars other than our own is home to life.
That's not true. You're assuming you know what these
probablities are.
No. I'm not. I just know that whatever they are, they are
greater than zero.
The probability that there is no other life in the universe is
also greater than zero.
Do feel free to propose a test by which we can distinguish
between those two probabilities. (I expect that, if you can do
so, there's a Nobel Prize in it for you.)
Post by David Johnston
Post by Default User
You don't. There is data that we have. You're trying to
extrapolate more data from the little that we have. A model
that doesn't include other life, intelligent or otherwise,
fits the facts that are present.
That is not a point I am arguing. The point I am arguing is
the applicability of Occams Razor.
And you're failing in that, too.
--
Terry Austin
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
But why would he need to do that? He is not making any claims
about the actual presence of life elsewhere in the universe. Do
you understand the difference between an actual belief and a
working assumption?
Assumptions are pretty much the exact opposite of science. And
worth every penny you paid for them.

Both sides are embarassing themselves, or would be, if they weren't
too stupid to be self aware enough to feel embarassment. That
includes you.
--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
David Johnston
2018-03-07 03:57:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Zygon
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by David Johnston
Post by Default User
Post by David Johnston
If life did exist elsewhere there would almost certainly be no
data anyway, making a lack of data less than compelling.
What does "compelling" have to do with it? Does a model with no
other intelligent, technological species fit the data? I say
yes.
Post by David Johnston
No. It isn't. Knowing as we now do that there are plenty of
roughly earthlike planets it's actually more complicated to
postulate that not a single world orbiting some 100 octillian
stars other than our own is home to life.
That's not true. You're assuming you know what these
probablities are.
No. I'm not. I just know that whatever they are, they are
greater than zero.
The probability that there is no other life in the universe is also
greater than zero.
Do feel free to propose a test by which we can distinguish between
those two probabilities. (I expect that, if you can do so, there's
a Nobel Prize in it for you.)
Post by David Johnston
Post by Default User
You don't. There is data that we have. You're trying to
extrapolate more data from the little that we have. A model
that doesn't include other life, intelligent or otherwise, fits
the facts that are present.
That is not a point I am arguing. The point I am arguing is the
applicability of Occams Razor.
And you're failing in that, too.
--
Terry Austin
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
But why would he need to do that? He is not making any claims about the actual presence of life elsewhere in the universe. Do you understand the difference between an actual belief and a working assumption?
A smart person just killfiles that asshole.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-03-07 17:36:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 7:45:29 PM UTC-5, Jibini Kula
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by David Johnston
Post by Default User
Post by David Johnston
If life did exist elsewhere there would almost certainly be
no data anyway, making a lack of data less than compelling.
What does "compelling" have to do with it? Does a model with
no other intelligent, technological species fit the data? I
say yes.
Post by David Johnston
No. It isn't. Knowing as we now do that there are plenty
of roughly earthlike planets it's actually more complicated
to postulate that not a single world orbiting some 100
octillian stars other than our own is home to life.
That's not true. You're assuming you know what these
probablities are.
No. I'm not. I just know that whatever they are, they are
greater than zero.
The probability that there is no other life in the universe is
also greater than zero.
Do feel free to propose a test by which we can distinguish
between those two probabilities. (I expect that, if you can do
so, there's a Nobel Prize in it for you.)
Post by David Johnston
Post by Default User
You don't. There is data that we have. You're trying to
extrapolate more data from the little that we have. A model
that doesn't include other life, intelligent or otherwise,
fits the facts that are present.
That is not a point I am arguing. The point I am arguing is
the applicability of Occams Razor.
And you're failing in that, too.
--
Terry Austin
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more
asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
But why would he need to do that? He is not making any claims
about the actual presence of life elsewhere in the universe.
Do you understand the difference between an actual belief and a
working assumption?
A smart person just killfiles that asshole.
I think you need to be a bit more specific as to which asshole.
There are so many.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Default User
2018-03-07 01:38:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by Default User
Post by David Johnston
No. It isn't. Knowing as we now do that there are plenty of
roughly earthlike planets it's actually more complicated to
postulate that not a single world orbiting some 100 octillian
stars other than our own is home to life.
That's not true. You're assuming you know what these probablities are.
No. I'm not. I just know that whatever they are, they are greater
than zero.
But probabilities are not data. They are not facts.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Default User
You don't. There is data that we have. You're trying to extrapolate
more data from the little that we have. A model that doesn't include
other life, intelligent or otherwise, fits the facts that are present.
That is not a point I am arguing. The point I am arguing is the
applicability of Occams Razor.
Other species are not necessary to fit the data that we have. That is
absolutely Occam's Razor.


Brian
David Johnston
2018-03-07 04:05:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Default User
Post by David Johnston
Post by Default User
Post by David Johnston
No. It isn't. Knowing as we now do that there are plenty of
roughly earthlike planets it's actually more complicated to
postulate that not a single world orbiting some 100 octillian
stars other than our own is home to life.
That's not true. You're assuming you know what these probablities are.
No. I'm not. I just know that whatever they are, they are greater
than zero.
But probabilities are not data. They are not facts.
No, the data and the facts are the number of planets we can detect at
the range where we can detect them, and the number of stars we can
detect in the universe beyond.
Post by Default User
Post by David Johnston
Post by Default User
You don't. There is data that we have. You're trying to extrapolate
more data from the little that we have. A model that doesn't include
other life, intelligent or otherwise, fits the facts that are present.
That is not a point I am arguing. The point I am arguing is the
applicability of Occams Razor.
Other species are not necessary to fit the data that we have. That is
absolutely Occam's Razor.
No. It isn't. Occam's Razor is only relevant to attempts to use, say,
aliens, to explain things that could just as easily explained without
recourse to those hypothetical aliens. But in this case aliens aren't
being used to explain anything. So there's nothing to cut.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-03-06 23:15:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by Default User
Post by David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
"I didn't find treasure in my backyard so I will assume that
there's no buried treasure anywhere in the world" is not
sound reasoning.
Why?
Inadequate sample size. Given that we know that "treasure"
exists, and can be "buried", searching your "backyard" and not
finding any "treasure" only tells you about your "backyard"
not about the absolute possibility of "treasure" elsewhere.
But that's assuming that you do know that treasure exists. You
have to work with the data youhave. If the only backyard you've
seen has no treasure, you wouldn't assume that other yards do.
Or would you?
You're adding data about other treasure.
Post by David Johnston
Occam's Razor doesn't really work like that. It would
actually be more complicated to explain why life only exists
in one place in a radius of 46 billion light years than it
would be to just assume that it exists in multiple places but
so sparsely as to be outside of the range of our ability to
look for it...particularly given how limited that range is.
I don't agree. That life exists nowhere else fits the data.
If life did exist elsewhere there would almost certainly be no
data anyway, making a lack of data less than compelling.
There is
Post by Default User
simply no data supporting other life. You're adding "well it
might exist outside of our observable space", but that's more
complicated than "doesn't exist outside of Earth period."
No. It isn't. Knowing as we now do that there are plenty of
roughly earthlike planets it's actually more complicated to
postulate that not a single world orbiting some 100 octillian
stars other than our own is home to life.
No. It's equally complicated. Because the only scientifically
supportable statement we can make is "we lack sufficient data to
even guess."
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
The Zygon
2018-03-07 00:27:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
"I didn't find treasure in my backyard so I will assume that there's
no buried treasure anywhere in the world" is not sound reasoning.
Why?
Inadequate sample size. Given that we know that "treasure" exists, and
can be "buried", searching your "backyard" and not finding any
"treasure" only tells you about your "backyard" not about the absolute
possibility of "treasure" elsewhere.
Occam's Razor doesn't really work like that. It would actually be more
complicated to explain why life only exists in one place in a radius of
46 billion light years than it would be to just assume that it exists in
multiple places but so sparsely as to be outside of the range of our
ability to look for it...particularly given how limited that range is.
Of course it's also true that if alien life exists but we'll never know
about it, it's pretty much the same for us as if it didn't exist at all.
Well, said.
Default User
2018-03-07 01:45:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Zygon
Post by David Johnston
"I didn't find treasure in my backyard so I will assume that
there's >> no buried treasure anywhere in the world" is not sound
reasoning.
Why?
Inadequate sample size. Given that we know that "treasure" exists,
and can be "buried", searching your "backyard" and not finding any
"treasure" only tells you about your "backyard" not about the
absolute possibility of "treasure" elsewhere.
Occam's Razor doesn't really work like that. It would actually be
more complicated to explain why life only exists in one place in a
radius of 46 billion light years than it would be to just assume
that it exists in multiple places but so sparsely as to be outside
of the range of our ability to look for it...particularly given how
limited that range is.
Of course it's also true that if alien life exists but we'll never
know about it, it's pretty much the same for us as if it didn't
exist at all.
Well, said.
Not it's incorrectly said. We, in the case I set up, only know that no
treasure has been found in this backyard. We don't know what's in
backyards we haven't searched.

You work with the data you have, not the data you want to be there. Or
that you think is probably there if we look long enough.


Brian
The Zygon
2018-03-07 02:09:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Default User
Post by The Zygon
Post by David Johnston
"I didn't find treasure in my backyard so I will assume that
there's >> no buried treasure anywhere in the world" is not sound
reasoning.
Why?
Inadequate sample size. Given that we know that "treasure" exists,
and can be "buried", searching your "backyard" and not finding any
"treasure" only tells you about your "backyard" not about the
absolute possibility of "treasure" elsewhere.
Occam's Razor doesn't really work like that. It would actually be
more complicated to explain why life only exists in one place in a
radius of 46 billion light years than it would be to just assume
that it exists in multiple places but so sparsely as to be outside
of the range of our ability to look for it...particularly given how
limited that range is.
Of course it's also true that if alien life exists but we'll never
know about it, it's pretty much the same for us as if it didn't
exist at all.
Well, said.
Not it's incorrectly said. We, in the case I set up, only know that no
treasure has been found in this backyard. We don't know what's in
backyards we haven't searched.
You work with the data you have, not the data you want to be there. Or
that you think is probably there if we look long enough.
Brian
The fact that the other backyards have no been searched is data that you have. You need to search some more before you can come any conclusion. The fact that your sample is too small to form the basis of any projection is also data that you have. You are fixating on one datum and declaring it "the data I have", as if that is the only thing you know.
Robert Carnegie
2018-03-07 03:31:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Zygon
Post by Default User
Post by The Zygon
Post by David Johnston
"I didn't find treasure in my backyard so I will assume that
there's >> no buried treasure anywhere in the world" is not sound
reasoning.
Why?
Inadequate sample size. Given that we know that "treasure" exists,
and can be "buried", searching your "backyard" and not finding any
"treasure" only tells you about your "backyard" not about the
absolute possibility of "treasure" elsewhere.
Occam's Razor doesn't really work like that. It would actually be
more complicated to explain why life only exists in one place in a
radius of 46 billion light years than it would be to just assume
that it exists in multiple places but so sparsely as to be outside
of the range of our ability to look for it...particularly given how
limited that range is.
Of course it's also true that if alien life exists but we'll never
know about it, it's pretty much the same for us as if it didn't
exist at all.
Well, said.
Not it's incorrectly said. We, in the case I set up, only know that no
treasure has been found in this backyard. We don't know what's in
backyards we haven't searched.
You work with the data you have, not the data you want to be there. Or
that you think is probably there if we look long enough.
Brian
The fact that the other backyards have no been searched is data that you have. You need to search some more before you can come any conclusion. The fact that your sample is too small to form the basis of any projection is also data that you have. You are fixating on one datum and declaring it "the data I have", as if that is the only thing you know.
I don't know if in this metaphor, we're supposed to be unaware
that buried treasures have often been found elsewhere on this planet,
so really we're trying to decide if they all have been found.
The USS Lexington turned up the other day. Perhaps we're trying
to test whether stories like that are true, or are all hoaxes.

Aren't bank robbers every day hiding their loot, before they are
taken to jail, in a place where before their release some amusingly
inappropriate and inconvenient construction scheme will have occurred?
I think "major sports stadium" has been done, and "police station"
any number of times, but "retirement home" might be unused.

I seem to be headed towards trying to attract such a person
to bury their treasure in your yard, which probably misses the
point of the metaphor even more widely.
Titus G
2018-03-07 06:11:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Carnegie
Aren't bank robbers every day hiding their loot,
No. They pay multi-million bonuses to themselves as well as massive
contributions to their political masters.
D B Davis
2018-03-07 15:22:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Why be a dirty outlaw lurking in the shadows when you can be a
coruscant [1] pillar of the community? We really must do something about
Robert's old-school "bank robber" nomenclature.
To start with, let's flip the words around. Then tack a "ster" on
the end, to make it "robber bankster."
Think "robber baron." The cover _Money Power_ (Anstey) gives us a
clearer picture of the deal:

Loading Image...

Note.

1. My read of _World of Null-A_ (van Vogt) just concluded. And that
particular word's used as an homage to the Golden Age (of thirteen).

Thank you,

--
Don
The Zygon
2018-03-07 00:22:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
"I didn't find treasure in my backyard so I will assume that there's
no buried treasure anywhere in the world" is not sound reasoning.
Why?
Brian
Because your backyard is so small, comparatively speaking. But you missed the error David's objection. The assumption was not that there is no treasure anywhere else in the world. The assumption was that the world is not replete in treasure. There is a whole universe of possibilities between "Life on earth is unique" and "Life in the universe is common".
David Johnston
2018-03-07 00:31:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Zygon
Post by David Johnston
"I didn't find treasure in my backyard so I will assume that there's
no buried treasure anywhere in the world" is not sound reasoning.
Why?
Brian
Because your backyard is so small, comparatively speaking. But you missed the error David's objection. The assumption was not that there is no treasure anywhere else in the world. The assumption was that the world is not replete in treasure. There is a whole universe of possibilities between "Life on earth is unique" and "Life in the universe is common".
I was not suggesting that life in the universe is common.
Default User
2018-03-07 01:42:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by The Zygon
Post by David Johnston
"I didn't find treasure in my backyard so I will assume that
there's no buried treasure anywhere in the world" is not sound
reasoning.
Why?
Brian
Because your backyard is so small, comparatively speaking. But you
missed the error David's objection. The assumption was not that
there is no treasure anywhere else in the world. The assumption
was that the world is not replete in treasure. There is a whole
universe of possibilities between "Life on earth is unique" and
"Life in the universe is common".
I was not suggesting that life in the universe is common.
Postulating ANY other life is unnecessary to fit the data.


Brian
The Zygon
2018-03-07 02:14:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Default User
Post by David Johnston
Post by The Zygon
Post by David Johnston
"I didn't find treasure in my backyard so I will assume that
there's no buried treasure anywhere in the world" is not sound
reasoning.
Why?
Brian
Because your backyard is so small, comparatively speaking. But you
missed the error David's objection. The assumption was not that
there is no treasure anywhere else in the world. The assumption
was that the world is not replete in treasure. There is a whole
universe of possibilities between "Life on earth is unique" and
"Life in the universe is common".
I was not suggesting that life in the universe is common.
Postulating ANY other life is unnecessary to fit the data.
Brian
Quite. But basing a theory on one data point and refusing to gather other data is willful ignorance.

Essentially, you are arguing against inquiry, not false conclusions. With your kind of logic, once the first element was identified, it was illogical to look for anymore.
J. Clarke
2018-03-07 03:10:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 6 Mar 2018 18:14:25 -0800 (PST), The Zygon
Post by The Zygon
Post by Default User
Post by David Johnston
Post by The Zygon
Post by David Johnston
"I didn't find treasure in my backyard so I will assume that
there's no buried treasure anywhere in the world" is not sound
reasoning.
Why?
Brian
Because your backyard is so small, comparatively speaking. But you
missed the error David's objection. The assumption was not that
there is no treasure anywhere else in the world. The assumption
was that the world is not replete in treasure. There is a whole
universe of possibilities between "Life on earth is unique" and
"Life in the universe is common".
I was not suggesting that life in the universe is common.
Postulating ANY other life is unnecessary to fit the data.
Brian
Quite. But basing a theory on one data point and refusing to gather other data is willful ignorance.
Essentially, you are arguing against inquiry, not false conclusions. With your kind of logic, once the first element was identified, it was illogical to look for anymore.
WOULD YOU LEARN THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A HYPOTHESIS AND A
THEORY?
David Johnston
2018-03-07 04:07:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 6 Mar 2018 18:14:25 -0800 (PST), The Zygon
Post by The Zygon
Post by Default User
Post by David Johnston
Post by The Zygon
Post by David Johnston
"I didn't find treasure in my backyard so I will assume that
there's no buried treasure anywhere in the world" is not sound
reasoning.
Why?
Brian
Because your backyard is so small, comparatively speaking. But you
missed the error David's objection. The assumption was not that
there is no treasure anywhere else in the world. The assumption
was that the world is not replete in treasure. There is a whole
universe of possibilities between "Life on earth is unique" and
"Life in the universe is common".
I was not suggesting that life in the universe is common.
Postulating ANY other life is unnecessary to fit the data.
Brian
Quite. But basing a theory on one data point and refusing to gather other data is willful ignorance.
Essentially, you are arguing against inquiry, not false conclusions. With your kind of logic, once the first element was identified, it was illogical to look for anymore.
WOULD YOU LEARN THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A HYPOTHESIS AND A
THEORY?
Nobody used either term.
The Zygon
2018-03-07 06:32:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 6 Mar 2018 18:14:25 -0800 (PST), The Zygon
Post by The Zygon
Post by Default User
Post by David Johnston
Post by The Zygon
Post by David Johnston
"I didn't find treasure in my backyard so I will assume that
there's no buried treasure anywhere in the world" is not sound
reasoning.
Why?
Brian
Because your backyard is so small, comparatively speaking. But you
missed the error David's objection. The assumption was not that
there is no treasure anywhere else in the world. The assumption
was that the world is not replete in treasure. There is a whole
universe of possibilities between "Life on earth is unique" and
"Life in the universe is common".
I was not suggesting that life in the universe is common.
Postulating ANY other life is unnecessary to fit the data.
Brian
Quite. But basing a theory on one data point and refusing to gather other data is willful ignorance.
Essentially, you are arguing against inquiry, not false conclusions. With your kind of logic, once the first element was identified, it was illogical to look for anymore.
WOULD YOU LEARN THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A HYPOTHESIS AND A
THEORY?
I know the difference. What is the relevance here?
J. Clarke
2018-03-07 12:15:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 6 Mar 2018 22:32:29 -0800 (PST), The Zygon
Post by The Zygon
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 6 Mar 2018 18:14:25 -0800 (PST), The Zygon
Post by The Zygon
Post by Default User
Post by David Johnston
Post by The Zygon
Post by David Johnston
"I didn't find treasure in my backyard so I will assume that
there's no buried treasure anywhere in the world" is not sound
reasoning.
Why?
Brian
Because your backyard is so small, comparatively speaking. But you
missed the error David's objection. The assumption was not that
there is no treasure anywhere else in the world. The assumption
was that the world is not replete in treasure. There is a whole
universe of possibilities between "Life on earth is unique" and
"Life in the universe is common".
I was not suggesting that life in the universe is common.
Postulating ANY other life is unnecessary to fit the data.
Brian
Quite. But basing a theory on one data point and refusing to gather other data is willful ignorance.
Essentially, you are arguing against inquiry, not false conclusions. With your kind of logic, once the first element was identified, it was illogical to look for anymore.
WOULD YOU LEARN THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A HYPOTHESIS AND A
THEORY?
I know the difference. What is the relevance here?
So why are you arguing ad-nausuem that a hypothesis is wrong?

Can it be falsified? If yes, it is a valid hypothesis.

Do you have evidence to present that falsifies it? If no then quit
arguing about how wrong it is.

Your argument seems to be that there may be some back yard somewhere
that contains buried treasure therefore one should not present the
hypothesis that back yards do not contain it. In effect you are
trying to enforce political correctness with regard to that
hypothesis.

Instead, present your counter-hypothesis, which I presume is "buried
treasure can be found in _some_ back yards", and the means by which it
may be falsified.

Then compare the levels of effort required to falsify each.
David Johnston
2018-03-07 18:19:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 6 Mar 2018 22:32:29 -0800 (PST), The Zygon
Post by The Zygon
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 6 Mar 2018 18:14:25 -0800 (PST), The Zygon
Post by The Zygon
Post by Default User
Post by David Johnston
Post by The Zygon
Post by David Johnston
"I didn't find treasure in my backyard so I will assume that
there's no buried treasure anywhere in the world" is not sound
reasoning.
Why?
Brian
Because your backyard is so small, comparatively speaking. But you
missed the error David's objection. The assumption was not that
there is no treasure anywhere else in the world. The assumption
was that the world is not replete in treasure. There is a whole
universe of possibilities between "Life on earth is unique" and
"Life in the universe is common".
I was not suggesting that life in the universe is common.
Postulating ANY other life is unnecessary to fit the data.
Brian
Quite. But basing a theory on one data point and refusing to gather other data is willful ignorance.
Essentially, you are arguing against inquiry, not false conclusions. With your kind of logic, once the first element was identified, it was illogical to look for anymore.
WOULD YOU LEARN THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A HYPOTHESIS AND A
THEORY?
I know the difference. What is the relevance here?
So why are you arguing ad-nausuem that a hypothesis is wrong?
Can it be falsified?
No. It can't.
Default User
2018-03-07 04:51:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Zygon
Quite. But basing a theory on one data point and refusing to gather
other data is willful ignorance.
That's not anything that I said.
Post by The Zygon
Essentially, you are arguing against inquiry, not false conclusions.
With your kind of logic, once the first element was identified, it
was illogical to look for anymore.
That's not anything that I said. You're projecting. What I said was
that with the current data, the simplest model is one that has no other
life forms.


Brian
Dimensional Traveler
2018-03-07 03:07:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Default User
Post by David Johnston
Post by The Zygon
Post by David Johnston
"I didn't find treasure in my backyard so I will assume that
there's no buried treasure anywhere in the world" is not sound
reasoning.
Why?
Brian
Because your backyard is so small, comparatively speaking. But you
missed the error David's objection. The assumption was not that
there is no treasure anywhere else in the world. The assumption
was that the world is not replete in treasure. There is a whole
universe of possibilities between "Life on earth is unique" and
"Life in the universe is common".
I was not suggesting that life in the universe is common.
Postulating ANY other life is unnecessary to fit the data.
Postulating there can't BE any other life is also unnecessary to fit the
data.
--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.
Default User
2018-03-07 04:54:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Default User
Postulating ANY other life is unnecessary to fit the data.
Postulating there can't BE any other life is also unnecessary to fit
the data.
Who said that there can't be? I didn't. I said that the simplest model
that fits the data is one without other intelligent life. Do you not
understand the difference?


Brian
Default User
2018-03-07 01:41:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Zygon
Post by David Johnston
"I didn't find treasure in my backyard so I will assume that
there's no buried treasure anywhere in the world" is not sound
reasoning.
Why?
Because your backyard is so small, comparatively speaking. But you
missed the error David's objection. The assumption was not that
there is no treasure anywhere else in the world. The assumption was
that the world is not replete in treasure. There is a whole
universe of possibilities between "Life on earth is unique" and "Life
in the universe is common".
That data that I have is that there is no buried treasure found. The
model that there is no treasure fits that model. Adding anything to it,
like "there might be treasure in another yard" or "maybe the treasure
is buried deeper or in a different place than you looked" unnecessary
to fit the data. You can discard them from the model and it fits the
data equally well.


Brian
The Zygon
2018-03-07 02:05:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Default User
Post by The Zygon
Post by David Johnston
"I didn't find treasure in my backyard so I will assume that
there's no buried treasure anywhere in the world" is not sound
reasoning.
Why?
Because your backyard is so small, comparatively speaking. But you
missed the error David's objection. The assumption was not that
there is no treasure anywhere else in the world. The assumption was
that the world is not replete in treasure. There is a whole
universe of possibilities between "Life on earth is unique" and "Life
in the universe is common".
That data that I have is that there is no buried treasure found. The
model that there is no treasure fits that model. Adding anything to it,
like "there might be treasure in another yard" or "maybe the treasure
is buried deeper or in a different place than you looked" unnecessary
to fit the data. You can discard them from the model and it fits the
data equally well.
Brian
Are you really arguing that because there are no atomic bombs in your backyard, no atomic bombs exist? I don't believe so. So I must be missing your point. Can you elaborate?
Default User
2018-03-07 04:49:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Zygon
Are you really arguing that because there are no atomic bombs in your
backyard, no atomic bombs exist? I don't believe so. So I must be
missing your point. Can you elaborate?
I know they exist because they exist elsewhere. That's part of the data.


Brian
David Johnston
2018-03-07 04:08:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Default User
Post by The Zygon
Post by David Johnston
"I didn't find treasure in my backyard so I will assume that
there's no buried treasure anywhere in the world" is not sound
reasoning.
Why?
Because your backyard is so small, comparatively speaking. But you
missed the error David's objection. The assumption was not that
there is no treasure anywhere else in the world. The assumption was
that the world is not replete in treasure. There is a whole
universe of possibilities between "Life on earth is unique" and "Life
in the universe is common".
That data that I have is that there is no buried treasure found. The
model that there is no treasure fits that model. Adding anything to it,
like "there might be treasure in another yard" or "maybe the treasure
is buried deeper or in a different place than you looked" unnecessary
to fit the data. You can discard them from the model and it fits the
data equally well.
So what?
The Zygon
2018-03-07 00:15:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
Post by Default User
Post by The Zygon
Post by The Zygon
Post by The Zygon
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous scientist once
said that >>> physical phenomena are either unique or there are
lots of them. Given >>> that most rationalists today assume (or at
minimum, grant as a working >>> hypothesis) that we are not unique,
[. . .] >> They do? With no evidence? Sounds like a religion to me.
And you say the >> believers are called "rationalists"?
Post by The Zygon
What precisely would you call evidence that we are not unique
other than another technological species? And how can any
specific single idea constitute a religion?
And yes, the idea that we are not unique is the best working
assumption on the subject since most true statements which can be
made about us are demonstrably not only true for us.
Following the scientific method, we should formulate a theory that
a) is supported by facts as we know them and b) is falsifiable.
Such a theory is "Aliens don't exist" (We're unique).
It is supported by facts as we know them, and it is easily
falsifiable should aliens appear and present themselves.
Can you state one fact which supports the claim, "Aliens do not exist?"
An application of Occam's Razor suggests that as the simplist model
that fits the known facts. We haven't even found life anywhere besides
Earth.
We haven't had the opportunity to look for life anywhere besides Earth,
the moon and Mars.
Post by Default User
If you search your backyard for treasure and don't find any, which is
the simpler?
1. There is no treasure to find.
2. There is treasure but it's hidden better than expected.
"I didn't find treasure in my backyard so I will assume that there's no
buried treasure anywhere in the world" is not sound reasoning.
We have hardly looked at Mars, and the moon does not have enough of an atmosphere to support any kind of life we could understand as such.
The Zygon
2018-03-07 00:13:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Default User
Post by The Zygon
Post by The Zygon
Post by The Zygon
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous scientist once
said that >>> physical phenomena are either unique or there are
lots of them. Given >>> that most rationalists today assume (or at
minimum, grant as a working >>> hypothesis) that we are not unique,
[. . .] >> They do? With no evidence? Sounds like a religion to me.
And you say the >> believers are called "rationalists"?
Post by The Zygon
What precisely would you call evidence that we are not unique
other than another technological species? And how can any
specific single idea constitute a religion?
And yes, the idea that we are not unique is the best working
assumption on the subject since most true statements which can be
made about us are demonstrably not only true for us.
Following the scientific method, we should formulate a theory that
a) is supported by facts as we know them and b) is falsifiable.
Such a theory is "Aliens don't exist" (We're unique).
It is supported by facts as we know them, and it is easily
falsifiable should aliens appear and present themselves.
Can you state one fact which supports the claim, "Aliens do not exist?"
An application of Occam's Razor suggests that as the simplist model
that fits the known facts. We haven't even found life anywhere besides
Earth.
If you search your backyard for treasure and don't find any, which is
the simpler?
1. There is no treasure to find.
2. There is treasure but it's hidden better than expected.
Brian
I agree with the backyard analogy under circumstances where you abe able to make a thorough search of your backyard. We have barely begun to search.

On the other hand, if you believe that life is a physical phenomenon, suggesting that it occurs uniquely on one planet makes little sense. Most of what we know about physical phenomena suggest even when they are highly improbable, the universe provides such a huge probability space that probabilistic expectation is going to be greater than 1.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-03-06 23:22:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 1:49:28 PM UTC-5, Default User
Post by Default User
Post by The Zygon
On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 3:22:33 AM UTC-5, Butch
On Saturday, March 3, 2018 at 1:44:07 AM UTC-6, The
Post by The Zygon
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous
scientist once
said that >>> physical phenomena are either unique or there
are lots of them. Given >>> that most rationalists today
assume (or at minimum, grant as a working >>> hypothesis)
that we are not unique, [. . .] >> They do? With no
evidence? Sounds like a religion to me. And you say the >>
believers are called "rationalists"?
What precisely would you call evidence that we are not
unique other than another technological species? And how
can any specific single idea constitute a religion?
And yes, the idea that we are not unique is the best
working assumption on the subject since most true
statements which can be made about us are demonstrably
not only true for us.
Following the scientific method, we should formulate a
theory that a) is supported by facts as we know them and b)
is falsifiable.
Such a theory is "Aliens don't exist" (We're unique).
It is supported by facts as we know them, and it is easily
falsifiable should aliens appear and present themselves.
Can you state one fact which supports the claim, "Aliens do
not exist?"
An application of Occam's Razor suggests that as the simplist
model that fits the known facts. We haven't even found life
anywhere besides Earth.
If you search your backyard for treasure and don't find any,
which is the simpler?
1. There is no treasure to find.
2. There is treasure but it's hidden better than expected.
Brian
I agree with the backyard analogy under circumstances where you
abe able to make a thorough search of your backyard. We have
barely begun to search.
On the other hand, if you believe that life is a physical
phenomenon, suggesting that it occurs uniquely on one planet
makes little sense. Most of what we know about physical
phenomena suggest even when they are highly improbable, the
universe provides such a huge probability space that
probabilistic expectation is going to be greater than 1.
No theory is any more or less plausible than any other, because we
lack sufficient data to even guess.

"There is no other life in the universe" fits all known facts, and
is utterly untestable.

"The universe teems with life, including intelligent life with
technological civilizations, but their technology is something we
can't detect at this time" does as well.

So, for that matter, does "The universe teems with life, including
intelligent life, who think we're too dangerous to make contact
with, and are deliberately hiding from us with interstellar sized
shields that keep us from detecting their technology."

Or, while we're at ait, "We're all just a really, really detailed
computer simulation."

There is zero evience to distinguish between those, and many other
theories. Nor any way we're likely to ever *get* such evidnece, at
the present time.

Arguing which untestable theory is them ost plausbible makes you
*all* look *stupid*. Or lost in religious ferver, which amounts to
the same thing.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
The Zygon
2018-03-07 00:55:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 1:49:28 PM UTC-5, Default User
Post by Default User
Post by The Zygon
On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 3:22:33 AM UTC-5, Butch
On Saturday, March 3, 2018 at 1:44:07 AM UTC-6, The
Post by The Zygon
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous
scientist once
said that >>> physical phenomena are either unique or there
are lots of them. Given >>> that most rationalists today
assume (or at minimum, grant as a working >>> hypothesis)
that we are not unique, [. . .] >> They do? With no
evidence? Sounds like a religion to me. And you say the >>
believers are called "rationalists"?
What precisely would you call evidence that we are not
unique other than another technological species? And how
can any specific single idea constitute a religion?
And yes, the idea that we are not unique is the best
working assumption on the subject since most true
statements which can be made about us are demonstrably
not only true for us.
Following the scientific method, we should formulate a
theory that a) is supported by facts as we know them and b)
is falsifiable.
Such a theory is "Aliens don't exist" (We're unique).
It is supported by facts as we know them, and it is easily
falsifiable should aliens appear and present themselves.
Can you state one fact which supports the claim, "Aliens do not exist?"
An application of Occam's Razor suggests that as the simplist
model that fits the known facts. We haven't even found life
anywhere besides Earth.
If you search your backyard for treasure and don't find any,
which is the simpler?
1. There is no treasure to find.
2. There is treasure but it's hidden better than expected.
Brian
I agree with the backyard analogy under circumstances where you
abe able to make a thorough search of your backyard. We have
barely begun to search.
On the other hand, if you believe that life is a physical
phenomenon, suggesting that it occurs uniquely on one planet
makes little sense. Most of what we know about physical
phenomena suggest even when they are highly improbable, the
universe provides such a huge probability space that
probabilistic expectation is going to be greater than 1.
No theory is any more or less plausible than any other, because we
lack sufficient data to even guess.
"There is no other life in the universe" fits all known facts, and
is utterly untestable.
"The universe teems with life, including intelligent life with
technological civilizations, but their technology is something we
can't detect at this time" does as well.
So, for that matter, does "The universe teems with life, including
intelligent life, who think we're too dangerous to make contact
with, and are deliberately hiding from us with interstellar sized
shields that keep us from detecting their technology."
Or, while we're at ait, "We're all just a really, really detailed
computer simulation."
There is zero evience to distinguish between those, and many other
theories. Nor any way we're likely to ever *get* such evidnece, at
the present time.
Arguing which untestable theory is them ost plausbible makes you
*all* look *stupid*. Or lost in religious ferver, which amounts to
the same thing.
--
Terry Austin
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
It always irritates me when people call total strangers stupid on such little evidence. It is even more irritating when said person himself displays limited understanding of the issues under consideration.

A proposition can be said to be "untestable" in several ways. First, there is the meaning of "empirically untestable". That is, not testable within existing scientific constraints. That is, we don't know how to test it right now. Even this limited claim should be made carefully, because many such claims have been falsified only when someone gifted enough actually does contrive the experiment to test the proposition.

A proposition can can also be "scientifically untestable", in the sense that it is not really about physical phenomena and therefore falls outside the scope of scientific investigation.

A proposition can also be "untestable, even in principle". This is similar to the notion of being scientifically untestable but not quite the same. In this case, it is meant that the preconditions logically necessary to test the proposition cannot be recreated.

There are other variations of usage of the word "untestable" but all are close to at least one of the above. Only the proposition "Life on earth is unique" is untestable in any sense. This has to do with the inherent issues with establishing uniqueness. Because no matter how many examples fail the test, you are still cannot logically declare uniqueness. You usually need to show that some natural law would be violated if the phenomenon were not unique. All the other propositions are testable and in a sense are being tested.

Are you sure that you understand what it means to test a proposition about physical phenomena?
J. Clarke
2018-03-07 03:13:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 6 Mar 2018 16:55:26 -0800 (PST), The Zygon
Post by The Zygon
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 1:49:28 PM UTC-5, Default User
Post by Default User
Post by The Zygon
On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 3:22:33 AM UTC-5, Butch
On Saturday, March 3, 2018 at 1:44:07 AM UTC-6, The
Post by The Zygon
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous
scientist once
said that >>> physical phenomena are either unique or there
are lots of them. Given >>> that most rationalists today
assume (or at minimum, grant as a working >>> hypothesis)
that we are not unique, [. . .] >> They do? With no
evidence? Sounds like a religion to me. And you say the >>
believers are called "rationalists"?
What precisely would you call evidence that we are not
unique other than another technological species? And how
can any specific single idea constitute a religion?
And yes, the idea that we are not unique is the best
working assumption on the subject since most true
statements which can be made about us are demonstrably
not only true for us.
Following the scientific method, we should formulate a
theory that a) is supported by facts as we know them and b)
is falsifiable.
Such a theory is "Aliens don't exist" (We're unique).
It is supported by facts as we know them, and it is easily
falsifiable should aliens appear and present themselves.
Can you state one fact which supports the claim, "Aliens do not exist?"
An application of Occam's Razor suggests that as the simplist
model that fits the known facts. We haven't even found life
anywhere besides Earth.
If you search your backyard for treasure and don't find any,
which is the simpler?
1. There is no treasure to find.
2. There is treasure but it's hidden better than expected.
Brian
I agree with the backyard analogy under circumstances where you
abe able to make a thorough search of your backyard. We have
barely begun to search.
On the other hand, if you believe that life is a physical
phenomenon, suggesting that it occurs uniquely on one planet
makes little sense. Most of what we know about physical
phenomena suggest even when they are highly improbable, the
universe provides such a huge probability space that
probabilistic expectation is going to be greater than 1.
No theory is any more or less plausible than any other, because we
lack sufficient data to even guess.
"There is no other life in the universe" fits all known facts, and
is utterly untestable.
"The universe teems with life, including intelligent life with
technological civilizations, but their technology is something we
can't detect at this time" does as well.
So, for that matter, does "The universe teems with life, including
intelligent life, who think we're too dangerous to make contact
with, and are deliberately hiding from us with interstellar sized
shields that keep us from detecting their technology."
Or, while we're at ait, "We're all just a really, really detailed
computer simulation."
There is zero evience to distinguish between those, and many other
theories. Nor any way we're likely to ever *get* such evidnece, at
the present time.
Arguing which untestable theory is them ost plausbible makes you
*all* look *stupid*. Or lost in religious ferver, which amounts to
the same thing.
--
Terry Austin
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
It always irritates me when people call total strangers stupid on such little evidence. It is even more irritating when said person himself displays limited understanding of the issues under consideration.
A proposition can be said to be "untestable" in several ways. First, there is the meaning of "empirically untestable". That is, not testable within existing scientific constraints. That is, we don't know how to test it right now. Even this limited claim should be made carefully, because many such claims have been falsified only when someone gifted enough actually does contrive the experiment to test the proposition.
A proposition can can also be "scientifically untestable", in the sense that it is not really about physical phenomena and therefore falls outside the scope of scientific investigation.
A proposition can also be "untestable, even in principle". This is similar to the notion of being scientifically untestable but not quite the same. In this case, it is meant that the preconditions logically necessary to test the proposition cannot be recreated.
There are other variations of usage of the word "untestable" but all are close to at least one of the above. Only the proposition "Life on earth is unique" is untestable in any sense. This has to do with the inherent issues with establishing uniqueness. Because no matter how many examples fail the test, you are still cannot logically declare uniqueness. You usually need to show that some natural law would be violated if the phenomenon were not unique. All the other propositions are testable and in a sense are being tested.
Are you sure that you understand what it means to test a proposition about physical phenomena?
<makes popcorn>
Ninapenda Jibini
2018-03-07 03:47:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 6 Mar 2018 16:55:26 -0800 (PST), The Zygon
On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 7:23:00 PM UTC-5, Jibini Kula
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by The Zygon
Post by Default User
On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 9:36:40 AM UTC-5, Patok
On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 3:22:33 AM UTC-5, Butch
Post by Butch Malahide
Post by The Zygon
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous
scientist once
said that >>> physical phenomena are either unique or
there are lots of them. Given >>> that most
rationalists today assume (or at minimum, grant as a
working >>> hypothesis) that we are not unique, [. . .]
Post by Butch Malahide
They do? With no evidence? Sounds like a religion to
me. And you say the >> believers are called
"rationalists"?
What precisely would you call evidence that we are
not unique other than another technological species?
And how can any specific single idea constitute a
religion?
And yes, the idea that we are not unique is the best
working assumption on the subject since most true
statements which can be made about us are
demonstrably not only true for us.
Following the scientific method, we should formulate a
theory that a) is supported by facts as we know them
and b) is falsifiable.
Such a theory is "Aliens don't exist" (We're unique).
It is supported by facts as we know them, and it is
easily falsifiable should aliens appear and present
themselves.
Can you state one fact which supports the claim, "Aliens do not exist?"
An application of Occam's Razor suggests that as the
simplist model that fits the known facts. We haven't even
found life anywhere besides Earth.
If you search your backyard for treasure and don't find
any, which is the simpler?
1. There is no treasure to find.
2. There is treasure but it's hidden better than expected.
Brian
I agree with the backyard analogy under circumstances where
you abe able to make a thorough search of your backyard. We
have barely begun to search.
On the other hand, if you believe that life is a physical
phenomenon, suggesting that it occurs uniquely on one planet
makes little sense. Most of what we know about physical
phenomena suggest even when they are highly improbable, the
universe provides such a huge probability space that
probabilistic expectation is going to be greater than 1.
No theory is any more or less plausible than any other,
because we lack sufficient data to even guess.
"There is no other life in the universe" fits all known facts,
and is utterly untestable.
"The universe teems with life, including intelligent life with
technological civilizations, but their technology is something
we can't detect at this time" does as well.
So, for that matter, does "The universe teems with life,
including intelligent life, who think we're too dangerous to
make contact with, and are deliberately hiding from us with
interstellar sized shields that keep us from detecting their
technology."
Or, while we're at ait, "We're all just a really, really
detailed computer simulation."
There is zero evience to distinguish between those, and many
other theories. Nor any way we're likely to ever *get* such
evidnece, at the present time.
Arguing which untestable theory is them ost plausbible makes
you *all* look *stupid*. Or lost in religious ferver, which
amounts to the same thing.
--
Terry Austin
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more
asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
It always irritates me when people call total strangers stupid
on such little evidence. It is even more irritating when said
person himself displays limited understanding of the issues
under consideration.
A proposition can be said to be "untestable" in several ways.
First, there is the meaning of "empirically untestable". That
is, not testable within existing scientific constraints. That
is, we don't know how to test it right now. Even this limited
claim should be made carefully, because many such claims have
been falsified only when someone gifted enough actually does
contrive the experiment to test the proposition.
A proposition can can also be "scientifically untestable", in
the sense that it is not really about physical phenomena and
therefore falls outside the scope of scientific investigation.
A proposition can also be "untestable, even in principle". This
is similar to the notion of being scientifically untestable but
not quite the same. In this case, it is meant that the
preconditions logically necessary to test the proposition cannot
be recreated.
There are other variations of usage of the word "untestable" but
all are close to at least one of the above. Only the proposition
"Life on earth is unique" is untestable in any sense. This has
to do with the inherent issues with establishing uniqueness.
Because no matter how many examples fail the test, you are still
cannot logically declare uniqueness. You usually need to show
that some natural law would be violated if the phenomenon were
not unique. All the other propositions are testable and in a
sense are being tested.
Are you sure that you understand what it means to test a
proposition about physical phenomena?
<makes popcorn>
He's gonna be *fun*.
--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Ninapenda Jibini
2018-03-07 03:47:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 7:23:00 PM UTC-5, Jibini Kula
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 1:49:28 PM UTC-5, Default User
Post by Default User
Post by The Zygon
On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 3:22:33 AM UTC-5, Butch
On Saturday, March 3, 2018 at 1:44:07 AM UTC-6, The
Post by The Zygon
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous
scientist once
said that >>> physical phenomena are either unique or
there are lots of them. Given >>> that most
rationalists today assume (or at minimum, grant as a
working >>> hypothesis) that we are not unique, [. . .]
They do? With no evidence? Sounds like a religion to
me. And you say the >> believers are called
"rationalists"?
What precisely would you call evidence that we are not
unique other than another technological species? And
how can any specific single idea constitute a
religion?
And yes, the idea that we are not unique is the best
working assumption on the subject since most true
statements which can be made about us are demonstrably
not only true for us.
Following the scientific method, we should formulate a
theory that a) is supported by facts as we know them and
b) is falsifiable.
Such a theory is "Aliens don't exist" (We're unique).
It is supported by facts as we know them, and it is
easily falsifiable should aliens appear and present
themselves.
Can you state one fact which supports the claim, "Aliens
do not exist?"
An application of Occam's Razor suggests that as the
simplist model that fits the known facts. We haven't even
found life anywhere besides Earth.
If you search your backyard for treasure and don't find any,
which is the simpler?
1. There is no treasure to find.
2. There is treasure but it's hidden better than expected.
Brian
I agree with the backyard analogy under circumstances where
you abe able to make a thorough search of your backyard. We
have barely begun to search.
On the other hand, if you believe that life is a physical
phenomenon, suggesting that it occurs uniquely on one planet
makes little sense. Most of what we know about physical
phenomena suggest even when they are highly improbable, the
universe provides such a huge probability space that
probabilistic expectation is going to be greater than 1.
No theory is any more or less plausible than any other, because
we lack sufficient data to even guess.
"There is no other life in the universe" fits all known facts,
and is utterly untestable.
"The universe teems with life, including intelligent life with
technological civilizations, but their technology is something
we can't detect at this time" does as well.
So, for that matter, does "The universe teems with life,
including intelligent life, who think we're too dangerous to
make contact with, and are deliberately hiding from us with
interstellar sized shields that keep us from detecting their
technology."
Or, while we're at ait, "We're all just a really, really
detailed computer simulation."
There is zero evience to distinguish between those, and many
other theories. Nor any way we're likely to ever *get* such
evidnece, at the present time.
Arguing which untestable theory is them ost plausbible makes
you *all* look *stupid*. Or lost in religious ferver, which
amounts to the same thing.
--
Terry Austin
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
It always irritates me when people call total strangers stupid
on such little evidence.
There is considerable evidence that you are stupid. Your posts.
It is even more irritating when said
person himself displays limited understanding of the issues
under consideration.
Feel free to explain how we can distinguish between those
possibilities. Or not. We both know you won't, because you *can't*.

(And you didn't, in the irrelevant dodge that I snipped.)

Moron.
--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
The Zygon
2018-03-07 06:38:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 7:23:00 PM UTC-5, Jibini Kula
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
Post by The Zygon
Post by Default User
Post by The Zygon
Post by The Zygon
Post by Butch Malahide
Post by The Zygon
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous
scientist once
said that >>> physical phenomena are either unique or
there are lots of them. Given >>> that most
rationalists today assume (or at minimum, grant as a
working >>> hypothesis) that we are not unique, [. . .]
Post by The Zygon
Post by Butch Malahide
They do? With no evidence? Sounds like a religion to
me. And you say the >> believers are called
"rationalists"?
Post by The Zygon
What precisely would you call evidence that we are not
unique other than another technological species? And
how can any specific single idea constitute a
religion?
And yes, the idea that we are not unique is the best
working assumption on the subject since most true
statements which can be made about us are demonstrably
not only true for us.
Following the scientific method, we should formulate a
theory that a) is supported by facts as we know them and
b) is falsifiable.
Such a theory is "Aliens don't exist" (We're unique).
It is supported by facts as we know them, and it is
easily falsifiable should aliens appear and present
themselves.
Can you state one fact which supports the claim, "Aliens do not exist?"
An application of Occam's Razor suggests that as the
simplist model that fits the known facts. We haven't even
found life anywhere besides Earth.
If you search your backyard for treasure and don't find any,
which is the simpler?
1. There is no treasure to find.
2. There is treasure but it's hidden better than expected.
Brian
I agree with the backyard analogy under circumstances where
you abe able to make a thorough search of your backyard. We
have barely begun to search.
On the other hand, if you believe that life is a physical
phenomenon, suggesting that it occurs uniquely on one planet
makes little sense. Most of what we know about physical
phenomena suggest even when they are highly improbable, the
universe provides such a huge probability space that
probabilistic expectation is going to be greater than 1.
No theory is any more or less plausible than any other, because
we lack sufficient data to even guess.
"There is no other life in the universe" fits all known facts,
and is utterly untestable.
"The universe teems with life, including intelligent life with
technological civilizations, but their technology is something
we can't detect at this time" does as well.
So, for that matter, does "The universe teems with life,
including intelligent life, who think we're too dangerous to
make contact with, and are deliberately hiding from us with
interstellar sized shields that keep us from detecting their
technology."
Or, while we're at ait, "We're all just a really, really
detailed computer simulation."
There is zero evience to distinguish between those, and many
other theories. Nor any way we're likely to ever *get* such
evidnece, at the present time.
Arguing which untestable theory is them ost plausbible makes
you *all* look *stupid*. Or lost in religious ferver, which
amounts to the same thing.
--
Terry Austin
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
It always irritates me when people call total strangers stupid
on such little evidence.
There is considerable evidence that you are stupid. Your posts.
It is even more irritating when said
person himself displays limited understanding of the issues
under consideration.
Feel free to explain how we can distinguish between those
possibilities. Or not. We both know you won't, because you *can't*.
(And you didn't, in the irrelevant dodge that I snipped.)
Moron.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
I don't think that further discussion with you useful. I will ignore all further posts from you.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2018-03-07 17:34:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by Ninapenda Jibini
On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 7:23:00 PM UTC-5, Jibini Kula
Post by Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
On Tuesday, March 6, 2018 at 1:49:28 PM UTC-5, Default
Post by Default User
On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 9:36:40 AM UTC-5, Patok
On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 3:22:33 AM UTC-5, Butch
On Saturday, March 3, 2018 at 1:44:07 AM UTC-6,
Post by The Zygon
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous
scientist once
said that >>> physical phenomena are either unique or
there are lots of them. Given >>> that most
rationalists today assume (or at minimum, grant as a
working >>> hypothesis) that we are not unique, [. . .]
They do? With no evidence? Sounds like a religion to
me. And you say the >> believers are called
"rationalists"?
What precisely would you call evidence that we are
not unique other than another technological
species? And how can any specific single idea
constitute a religion?
And yes, the idea that we are not unique is the
best working assumption on the subject since most
true statements which can be made about us are
demonstrably not only true for us.
Following the scientific method, we should formulate
a theory that a) is supported by facts as we know
them and b) is falsifiable.
Such a theory is "Aliens don't exist" (We're unique).
It is supported by facts as we know them, and it is
easily falsifiable should aliens appear and present
themselves.
Can you state one fact which supports the claim,
"Aliens do not exist?"
An application of Occam's Razor suggests that as the
simplist model that fits the known facts. We haven't even
found life anywhere besides Earth.
If you search your backyard for treasure and don't find
any, which is the simpler?
1. There is no treasure to find.
2. There is treasure but it's hidden better than
expected.
Brian
I agree with the backyard analogy under circumstances
where you abe able to make a thorough search of your
backyard. We have barely begun to search.
On the other hand, if you believe that life is a physical
phenomenon, suggesting that it occurs uniquely on one
planet makes little sense. Most of what we know about
physical phenomena suggest even when they are highly
improbable, the universe provides such a huge probability
space that probabilistic expectation is going to be
greater than 1.
No theory is any more or less plausible than any other,
because we lack sufficient data to even guess.
"There is no other life in the universe" fits all known
facts, and is utterly untestable.
"The universe teems with life, including intelligent life
with technological civilizations, but their technology is
something we can't detect at this time" does as well.
So, for that matter, does "The universe teems with life,
including intelligent life, who think we're too dangerous to
make contact with, and are deliberately hiding from us with
interstellar sized shields that keep us from detecting their
technology."
Or, while we're at ait, "We're all just a really, really
detailed computer simulation."
There is zero evience to distinguish between those, and many
other theories. Nor any way we're likely to ever *get* such
evidnece, at the present time.
Arguing which untestable theory is them ost plausbible makes
you *all* look *stupid*. Or lost in religious ferver, which
amounts to the same thing.
--
Terry Austin
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more
asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
It always irritates me when people call total strangers
stupid on such little evidence.
There is considerable evidence that you are stupid. Your posts.
It is even more irritating when said
person himself displays limited understanding of the issues
under consideration.
Feel free to explain how we can distinguish between those
possibilities. Or not. We both know you won't, because you
*can't*.
(And you didn't, in the irrelevant dodge that I snipped.)
Moron.
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
I don't think
I noticed.
Post by m***@sky.com
that further discussion with you useful.
Previous discussion wasn't useful[1], since you have nothing to
say. Plus, you're stupid.
Post by m***@sky.com
I will
ignore all further posts from you.
I have doubts.

[1]Except in the only way that matters: I amused me. At your
expense.
--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Robert Carnegie
2018-03-05 21:54:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Zygon
Post by Butch Malahide
I mentioned in an earlier post the some famous scientist once said that physical phenomena are either unique or there are lots of them. Given that most rationalists today assume (or at minimum, grant as a working hypothesis) that we are not unique, [. . .]
They do? With no evidence? Sounds like a religion to me. And you say the
believers are called "rationalists"?
What precisely would you call evidence that we are not unique other than another technological species? And how can any specific single idea constitute a religion?
And yes, the idea that we are not unique is the best working assumption on the subject since most true statements which can be made about us are demonstrably not only true for us.
If "we" means humans, there are other species on Earth that
are, so to speak, handy with tools (if not with hands) and
cold take over, after a while, if we were removed.

If "we" means the planet and its star, we are unexceptional
except in ways that we are exceptional, unusual. It isn't
necessarily clear hat those are. For instance:

I haven't kept up with thinking on this, but since it now
turns out that most star systems have gas giant planets near
to the star - instead of other Earths, which those gas giants
probably ate - there's a question of what happened here
and how unusual is it. There was an idea that gas giants
usually form in the outer system then sort of swoop in,
and ours sort of locked together gravitationally and got stuck
outside the asteroid belt, or as hey saw it "afternoon tea".

Earth also has near the surface elements, metals in particular,
that may be buried in the core of most rock-planets by gravity,
because Earth seems to be the product of hitting an Earth-ish
planet with a Mars-ish planet named Theia (I'm not sure how
we know the name), leaving perhaps an especially large core
in fact as well as a quantity of ejected debris nearby,
formed by gravity again into a round grey ball. This may
be not even very unusual, because the planet Ear may have formed
in the first place with a "Trojan" companion planet in the same
orbit, stable until the companion gets too massive itself,
but ultimately more likely to hit the larger planet than anything
else in space of similar size is.

The big core of Earth gives us a magnetic field that protects
most of us from most of the deadly radiation from space, and
the debris ball in orbit apparently helps to keep Earth mostly
facing its equator to the sun and not its poles, like Uranus,
which would be bad news if you happen to be living, well,
anywhere.

So there's that sort of thing. Also, for five-sixths of Earth's
existence so far, there was basically nothing alive but slime.
Slime works pretty well, evidently. It probably wins most of
the time against anything hat isn't slime. But things changed
eventually. For one thing, the whole surface, or nearly all,
may have frozen over - land and sea, all ice. Ice wins most
of the time... and so do dinosaurs, when we get to them.

So maybe on most planets, the dominant life is slime and never
gets past that. Or past dinosaurs.
Loading...