Stop stealing my theories. There is only so much room on the talk-show / lecture circuit.
Do you believe in the existence of aliens?
- Thread starter Nerdius Maximus
- Start date
Stop stealing my theories. There is only so much room on the talk-show / lecture circuit.
Not quite. As I've said, what sounds like a statistical argument isn't because statistics doesn't deal with a sample size of one. Suppose the odds against any star having intelligent life are 1x10^22, in which case there was only a 10% chance of our own existence, and a hundred to one odds against their being any other intelligent species in the entire universe.
It's not earth-centric or absurd to think we might be the only planet with intelligent life, because the question can't be asked on any planet without intelligent life.
Here's another example.
You are an atom in a gas cloud. If and only if you are an oxygen atom you can ask yourself if you are the only oxygen atom in the gas cloud and speculate on how many other oxygen atoms might be in the gas cloud.
The number of total atoms in the cloud is irrelevant until you know the ratio of oxygen atoms to other atoms. It is entirely possible that the cloud contains 1x10^40 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. In fact, there was certainly a point after the big bang when the entire universe contained only one oxygen atom. It was probably lonely.
Going back to the sand example, suppose you are sitting on the beach holding a perfect diamond. You can speculate that the incredible number of grains of sand on the beach indicates that it must be littered with millions of perfect diamonds, yet given our understanding of beaches, isn't it more likely that you are holding the only one and that you only started pondering the odds because you happened to be holding a diamond?
But that's the flaw in your reasoning. You can't be looking at the odds because there isn't yet anything to base odds on. There are no odds to work with, just flights of fancy and idle speculation.
We know that life is possible given the laws of physics in this Universe, because we exist. We know that the laws of physics and the nature of matter is uniform throughout the Universe. Given the size of the Universe and the amount of matter therein, it's ridiculous to think that the same conditions that exist on Earth haven't been duplicated elsewhere, however infrequently. There's a non-zero possibility that we are the only life in the Universe, but it's so close to zero as makes no difference.
Ummm. There is something to base the odds are on.
People who say there's no other life in the universe: Are saying that there's only one planet in 10 sextillion that has life are on it.
What I am saying: That's highly unlikely, the huge number of planets in the universe makes it pretty much a certainty that there's others with life on it.
Population of the Universe: Zero
Exactly.
I think it's highly likely that there's life of some sort out there. Probably not evolved to our level, and probably not humanoid. But I won't rule any possibilities out completely. Except that they've been visiting earth.
No, it doesn't make it a certainty. It doesn't exclude the existence of alien life, but it does not make it a certainty.
Seriously. You are in a factory, and there is A GAZILLION of (empty) boxes, and you have found ONE box that contained a... teddy bear, whatever. There is no reason to assume that there needs to be another box that contains a teddy bear. It becomes only a possibilty once who found a second sample.
We have to accept the possibility there is no other life out there but us. We also have to accept the possibility there is other life out there with us.
We have nothing to prove it either way at this point, so both possibilities remain open.
That is the only way that logically makes sense to me.
We have nothing to prove it either way at this point, so both possibilities remain open.
That is the only way that logically makes sense to me.
I take the same approach to this as I do to the existence of God -- I have no proof either way, so I can't really say with certainty. However, I will admit I'm more inclined to lean towards belief in aliens than I am belief in God.
If there were no other intelligent life-forms in the universe, though, that would seem like an enormous waste of space.
If there were no other intelligent life-forms in the universe, though, that would seem like an enormous waste of space.
And what something would that be?
You have to be careful with statistical reasoning when the outcome is already given.
Here's an example of an invalid line of reasoning:
The odds that you would be born you and not someone else is one in six billion. The odds that someone else was born who they are is the same, one in six billion. The odds that this amazingly unlikely event coincidentally happened to all six billion people on earth is incomprehensibly large - or perhaps it's just a given.
Onward.
You can make a sound observational argument that we are the first species in our galaxy that might achieve interstellar travel, since even at extremely slow velocities achievable with current technology we could eventually populate every habitable planet in the galaxy within a few tens of millions of years, plus terraforming the non-habitable planets.
This argument that we're probably the first to evolve is based on the age of the galaxy and the fact that we seem to have evolved here naturally, as opposed to being an outpost in the Old Republic. From the conclusion that we might be the first spacefaring species to evolve in our galaxy in billions of years, the odds of another such species evolving in the next billion or so years is also pretty slim.
Though by no means an airtight argument, it is at least based on an observation; that we do not seem to be colonists from another star system. From this stepping stone, let us infer that our galaxy, with a spacefaring species production of only one after billions of years, is not some exceptional example of evolution in the average galaxy. That implies that galaxies with two naturally evolved spacefaring species should also be extremely rare.
So if there are other spacefaring species in other galaxies, they're probably lonely, too.
I've been to Roswell.
I've seen the proof...
I've seen the proof...
No.
Lets say, for the sake of this argument, there are a billion stars in the universe. If the possiblity of life is one in a million, than there will be about a thousand stars with at least one planet that sustains life. If the possibilty is one in a trillion, than there may only be one planet with life.
It is reasonable to believe in the former, but I believe in the latter. There is nothing special about this planet. Its just different than others, just as any planet are different from others.
Lets say, for the sake of this argument, there are a billion stars in the universe. If the possiblity of life is one in a million, than there will be about a thousand stars with at least one planet that sustains life. If the possibilty is one in a trillion, than there may only be one planet with life.
It is reasonable to believe in the former, but I believe in the latter. There is nothing special about this planet. Its just different than others, just as any planet are different from others.
Do I believe in aliens?
Only when I visit my in-laws.
Only when I visit my in-laws.
Thats why I wrote, "for the sake of this argument". Its something that some people use to get to a point. For example, we can ask, "If you are the president, how you handle the economy?" Some people may argue that they are not the president, but thats not the point of the discussion. So we say, "For the sake of this argument, lets assume you are."
Another example would be - "How can we communicate with aliens?" For the sake of the discussion, we would assume aliens exsist, are intelligent, and are able to communicate with us, instead of debating whether they exsist, or if any of them are intelligent.
I know there are more than a billion stars, but I find it is easier for people to understand my argument if I use billion, million, and thousand. People tend to get lost when I use 1x10^20 and 1x10^25, X and 10X, ect. I think people are more familiar with billion and million.
It's weird to me that people think technologically advanced aliens must automatically be "peaceful." Why? We're advanced, and we're not peaceful. War hasn't stopped or slowed down over the centuries as we've developed new technologies.
But its also weird (to me) if people think aliens must be warloving, power- and resource hungry. :P Maybe there are some who are peaceful and some who are not. Or...like with us, they have both sides in them. Peaceful, as long as they don´t feel threaten, treated unjust and have what they need for surviving. Of course there are always some who need more and more, even they have al ready enough, but there are also the ones, that can live contently with what they have, even when compared to others they are not rich and powerful.
And to that atom example earlier in the posts. Hmm..well, if I would be the only oxigenatom in a herd of other atoms... *shrug* ... who does say that its only oxigen atoms that are living and intelligent?
I still agree with those here, who say, that it is more likely, than unlikely, that other life is out there.
TerokNor
And to that atom example earlier in the posts. Hmm..well, if I would be the only oxigenatom in a herd of other atoms... *shrug* ... who does say that its only oxigen atoms that are living and intelligent?
I still agree with those here, who say, that it is more likely, than unlikely, that other life is out there.
TerokNor
Actually it has decreased, and dramatically. Not only that, the change occured at all levels, by both decades and centuries. It is a very glaring statistic that Steven Pinker lectures about.
For example, people were going nuts about Iraq which produced 500 to 800 fatal casualties a year. At the Somme the British suffered 24,000 or so casualties on the first day and kept up the assault for weeks because they were winning.
War has become far less frequent and produces vastly casualties than wars in the past.
Another example from archeology. Based on bone studies, at least one third of people in tribal societies died violent deaths, not counting those who died from soft tissue injuries that didn't leave marks on their bones. If mankind still died in war at that rate then we'd have suffered many billions of war deaths in the 20th century.
In times past every able male was a warrior and went to war a couple times a year against neighboring villages, with a third or so eventually getting killed. In modern times only 1 or 2% of males every join the military, only a small percentage of them are in the service during a war, an even smaller percentage actually engage in a war, and an even smaller percentage of them are actually killed.
The American fatality rate in Iraq never exceeded the drunk driving deaths in Missouri, Minnesota, Michagan, or most states that start with 'M'. Getting killed in a war is less likely than being struck by lightning and only slightly more likely than being mauled by a bear. But when my own father was born (during the Great War) the combat deaths were so staggeringly high that it formed a lost generation, with industrialized countries losing millions of soldiers per year.
That's not an appropriate metaphor. We're talking about the possibility of a natural occurrence. Look at it this way: There are more than ten sextillion stars in the Universe. If you flip a coin ten sextillion times, it's possible that it will come up tails every time-- but the possibility is so small that it is not worth taking seriously.
It's an appropriate metaphor when you have no clue at all where these boxes have come from, what they are all for, and how the hell that one teddy bear you found came into one of these boxes.
