50/50 Logic as it Pertains to Alien Life

There are two commonly held assumptions in regards to our universe:

1) It is an infinite space which consequently contains an infinite number of stars.

2) It is a finite space which is, although very large, not without boundaries. Furthermore, a finite space such as the universe must contain a finite number of stars at any given point in time.

These two ideas are in contrast with one another fundamentally yet still allow for a mutually held belief: The number of stars within our universe (infinite or not) is to great a number to allow for independent observation of each and its' corresponding planetary system (with our given technology). And it is here that the laws of observation can be extrapolated upon to form a '50/50 Logic As It Pertains To Alien Life'.

The best place to begin this argument is with an understanding of a basic quantum physics theory. That theory is superposition and it is best detailed with the classic 'Schrödinger’s Cat' experiment.

The thought experiment attempts to explain superposition on the subatomic level by using a hypothetical cat (an object too large in nature to experience natural states of superposition).

In this experiment Schrödinger explains that you are to place a cat inside of a closed box which also houses a Geiger counter containing a piece of radioactive substance so small that it may or may not with equal probability, in the course of an hour, experience decay of one of the atoms. If this decay is detected the Geiger counter detects it and then triggers a mechanism which releases hydrocyanic acid.

So what are we left with now? You are left with a cat that may or may not be alive. The cat has entered a state of superposition which, until the box is opened and its contents observed, contains both possible outcomes. In short: Schrödinger’s cat is both alive and dead.

Now that this concept has been explained we can finally get to alien life forms.

As you remember, from the beginning of this post, the universe contains a number of stars and corresponding planetary systems too large to be independently observed from one another. Therefore, we must logically assume that until all aforementioned planets are observed that alien life forms (intelligent or not) will continue to both exist and not exist.

We are presented with a logical 50/50 split which, like Schrödinger’s cat, can not be determined in one direction or the other unless observation of 'the box' (our universe) is completed in its finality.

---

Do you have any comments or questions? Post them here.

Do you disagree with my theory? Tell me here.

I appreciate you taking the time to read what I have said.

EDIT: Title change and a few spelling errors.

[edit on 3/28/0707 by spines]

One of my favorite hypothesis.

Now, do I think that somewhere in our universe, other forms of life exist ?
It would be very egotistical to think otherwise.

Have they ever visited Earth ?

Here is where the odds climb drastically in favor of no. I'd love to know that we ARE visited.
Sadly, without solid evidence, I'm left thinking that we'll find them someday.

Nice post.

Lex

[edit on 28-3-2007 by Lexion]

I think that in theory, this is both true, but also false. In short - we know that we put a cat, a radioactive substance and a geiger counter in a box. We know they exist. What we don't know is the end result, or if there will be one.

To place this in context with alien life in this universe is another thing. Firstly, the assumption of an infinite universe contradicts the big bang, which was finite, thus a finite universe must come out of it, unless the big bang is infinite and still ongoing.

Anyway, the point is that we do not know "what" the universe is, unlike the box. We also do not know all of the substances that we have in the universe, unlike we know with the cat, the radioactive substance, geiger counter, the air and the dimensions of the box. Also, the box is closed, but is the universe also a closed system, or is something going in and out of it (i.e. black holes)?

Now, many people assume that because of the creation of life on earth that must mean that other planets also can create, at least, similar conditions to those of earth. The 50/50 theory assumes that there are same or similar conditions, but we don't know this. Maybe we're lucky? Maybe it's destiny?

What I'm trying to point out is that the case with Schroedingers cat is measurable because we know what went into the box, we know all there is to know in that case, but the same can not be said for the universe, because we know that some things went into "the box", not everything.

We can't speculate on what happened to the cat if we don't know that there was a cat in the first place, so to speak.

Personally, I think that we indeed are visited by something, but I still have a problem with this "something" being aliens from another planet. Also, to be mainstream, it is only speculation as to what "it" might be, and like Lexion said, without any hard evidence, we really don't know.

Originally posted by Orgler
To place this in context with alien life in this universe is another thing. Firstly, the assumption of an infinite universe contradicts the big bang, which was finite, thus a finite universe must come out of it, unless the big bang is infinite and still ongoing.

I believe that I mentioned that it may also be finite with a finite number of stars at any one time (taking into account that stars die). Of these many have planetary systems with which life could theoretically exist.

Perhaps I did not make it quite clear enough (I know I can sometimes omit from my writing those things which I find clear in my own mind). Finite number of possible planets or infinite really makes no difference as we have no way of observing every planet of a finite universe anyway. So, infinite or finite, the universe is still to vast to allow us to observe every possible star system with in which resides planets.

Without the possibility of observation on every planet we are left with a 50/50 of their both being and not being alien life (intelligent or otherwise) in the universe.

We can not say that life definetly does exist as we have no way of proving this without observation and subsequent discovery.

Furthermore, we can not say with reason that it does not occur elsewhere in our universe as we ourselves exist and therefore lends to the relative possibility that life occurs elsewhere.

Originally posted by Orgler
Anyway, the point is that we do not know "what" the universe is, unlike the box. We also do not know all of the substances that we have in the universe, unlike we know with the cat, the radioactive substance, geiger counter, the air and the dimensions of the box. Also, the box is closed, but is the universe also a closed system, or is something going in and out of it (i.e. black holes)?

I used the thought experiment of Schrodinger's Cat as a way to put my concept into understandable words. I felt that without knowing what the nature of observational superposition is that extrapolating the theory onto another case would have been much more difficult.

I was not implying that alien life on another planet is superposition (as superposition is an occurance on the subatomic and macroscopic scale). I was simply making the connection.

Extrapolation was the key word in the original post and, once again, I apalogize if I was not clear with my words.

Originally posted by Orgler
Now, many people assume that because of the creation of life on earth that must mean that other planets also can create, at least, similar conditions to those of earth. The 50/50 theory assumes that there are same or similar conditions, but we don't know this. Maybe we're lucky? Maybe it's destiny?

Actually, I was not assuming life such as that on earth. Life has the possibility, theoretically, of making itself existent in other forms. Life, as to be observed on other planets, may or may not be made within the same carbon based system which earth caters to.

So, in short: My theory does not assume that there are similar conditions elsewhere. You have supplemented that assumption yourself.

Originally posted by Orgler
What I'm trying to point out is that the case with Schroedingers cat is measurable because we know what went into the box, we know all there is to know in that case, but the same can not be said for the universe, because we know that some things went into "the box", not everything.

See first response in this reply.

Extrapolation onto another scale using Schrodinger's Cat as a spring board.

Originally posted by Orgler
We can't speculate on what happened to the cat if we don't know that there was a cat in the first place, so to speak.

Ah, but, like I said earlier in this response, we have something by which to assume life is a real possibility elsewhere in the universe. We have the earth itself.

Our planets vast amounts of life and that lifes chance existence lends to the notion that other planets contain life as well. It does not have to be the space ship piloting E.T. that we find in popular culture to be considered life...intelligent or not. And then we find ourselves in a debate on intelligence and I do not want this thread to be derailed by myself.

I hope that I have cleared the misconception up --especially concerning the extrapolation of the thought experiment onto the subject of extra terrestrial life.

Thank you for the chance to talk long winded again.

Originally posted by Lexion
One of my favorite hypothesis.

I also enjoy it.

Originally posted by Lexion
Now, do I think that somewhere in our universe, other forms of life exist ?
It would be very egotistical to think otherwise.

I feel that our ego is not an issue in regards to life taking form elsewhere in the universe. It seems to me that it is a matter of observational possibility...

If we begin to observe planets one by one and come across some form of life then the question of its possibility is over. However, if we observe other planets and life does not make itself seen then we must understand that it both does and does not exist elsewhere in the universe.

And then if it is an infinite universe we are left with always having a planet which we have not yet observed and the question never answered.

However, if it is a finite universe the theory remains until every planet has been observed...at which case, if no life is found, it can be said that there is no other life in the universe except for ourselves.

...and even then there is an issue of scale...ugh, my head.

Originally posted by Lexion
Nice post.

Thank you.

Thank you for the good response.

Nice thread you have going here mate! Hmmmm...let me try to articulate some thoughts on this quandry you have here. I think that your analogy to Schroedinger's Cat is interesting and gets the philosophical context made...sometimes it's hard to find an adequate representation of theoretical dilemmas!

What I find unique in all of this is that we are a finite being trying to understand an infinite concept. Of course we cannot be in all places at once..unless, well I won't even get started with that one. Therefore Spines, how can we possibly know what exists and doesn't, right?? I think it was Descartes that had very similar paradoxes of reality. If you can't see it, well then how do you really know it's there..maybe it is and maybe it isn't, but you adhere to a law of probabilities!

Finite or infinte...the universe/multiverse is moving but what direction and from what to what?? Truth is we don't know, just like so many other things. We bind all of our thinking into one language..mathematics, so that we can universally communicate and base everything on what...you got it, probabilities!

There is no proof of anything really..sorry to anger anybody, but there is just as much proof that the universe is expanding as there is that it is compacting. Supermassive black holes, dark matter, and string theory are changing the way we think again, just like the new theory on the block always does. The theory of evolution is just that, a theory with no more proof to it than any other random guess.....in fact there is much more mathematical probability that distracts from evolution as there is to prove it...how bout that one gang!? Research it, you will find it to be impossible that evolution could have happened in the timeframe that science has limited it to. Science will change its stance very soon and/or extend the given timeframe by millions of years, and yes this is my opinion supported by years of anthropological/archaeological analysis.

Think of it this way, we do not even no what causes gravity? Yet, we are to understand the uni/mutliverse..c'mon, it's a great vision but we must learn to be humble enough to know that we are not there yet while continuing to pursue the dream. Do other life forms exist..well that's a high mathematical probability. Do they visit us..well that's much less probable but it is possible. We (humans) have to quantify and qualify everything in relation to us, rather than the other way around..it seems to be a condition of our egos!?

Sorry, it's late and I must get some rest..I hope some of this made some sense as I am sure I will wish to edit it later. Peace, Mondo

I must also comment on the whole Shroedinger's cat theory. Why is the cat "alive and dead" at the same time? Clearly, one of those options must be true - but they can not be true at the same time.

Without the possibility of observation on every planet we are left with a 50/50 of their both being and not being alien life (intelligent or otherwise) in the universe.

Yes, that's true, but that is just speculation. We just don't know - some think there are, and have good reasons to believe so, others think there are not with their own reasons. I mean, they can not exist and not exist until the time when we may find them (or they us).

Like I said, we don't know if the same conditions have arrised on other planets, or if life indeed can evolve into advanced stages based on different materials.

So, in short: My theory does not assume that there are similar conditions elsewhere. You have supplemented that assumption yourself.

Yes, but the point is that we don't have the information to "declare" that there is a 50/50 chance of aliens existing and not existing at the same time. You could say that if we knew there were another civilization on another planet, we could question if they still existed, and thus pose the question of them existing and not existing at the same time.

Ah, but, like I said earlier in this response, we have something by which to assume life is a real possibility elsewhere in the universe. We have the earth itself.

Yes - but we don't know the complete functionality of this universe. Does "luck" play a role? Is there a "destiny"? Is the universe created as to fit only one civilization? Once again, it is both correct but also incorrect to assume one or both. We can say that "as far as we know, it is possible that there is life elsewhere". We can however not say that "there either is or isn't any life".

The whole theory is ironically both right but also wrong. I think it also depends on how you view the Shroedinger's cat theory.

Orgler,
In response to your last post, I agree a great deal with you! We tend to view things from our own perspective and why not, there really is no other way to do so, right? However, there may be fundamental flaws to this line of thinking such as, well we may just be flat out wrong. As you point out, it may depend on your view of Schroedinger's Cat, but is that not the same thing as matter of perspective!?

Who is to say 50/50? A theory no doubt, but a theory at best and it may be way off. The earth was flat and that was 100% true for quite a while until it became 100% false. An intersting question we have here..."can something exist and not exist at the same time?"

A quote from the beloved Yoda, "Do or do not...there is no try!"

Peace, Mondo

Originally posted by Orgler
I must also comment on the whole Shroedinger's cat theory. Why is the cat "alive and dead" at the same time? Clearly, one of those options must be true - but they can not be true at the same time.

Shcrodinger's Cat is a way of explaining a subatomic principle using basic ideas which most anyone can grasp. Yes, the cat is either alive or dead. However, and this is the key point so listen up:

Until you have observed the cat (opened the box) you know that there is a very real chance that the cat is alive and also a very real chance that the cat is dead (your radioactive material with the small half life has assured this). There is no way to tell, until observation, whether or not the cat is still alive. Therefore, you must assume that the cat is both alive and dead.

Both situations are possible and both must be assumed until observation determines which is correct. Schrodinger does not say that the cat is literally alive and dead. Rather, he simply states that given the circumstance one must assume that the cat is both alive and dead. Observation determines the actual state of the cat and there is his analogy on superposition.

Furthermore, this concept of superposition seems to prove itself on the subatomic scale (where it is intended to be literal) with the Slit Experiment.

Originally posted by Orgler

Originally posted by spines
Without the possibility of observation on every planet we are left with a 50/50 of their both being and not being alien life (intelligent or otherwise) in the universe.

Yes, that's true, but that is just speculation. We just don't know - some think there are, and have good reasons to believe so, others think there are not with their own reasons. I mean, they can not exist and not exist until the time when we may find them (or they us).

Yes, it is speculation. And I would have to say that yes, yes they can both exist and not exist until a point of either discovery of alien life elsewhere in the universe or (if possible) the completion of observing every other planet and finding no life present.

The problem you seem to have is that you are taking this as a literal "life depends on us seeing it" type of statement. What I wished to convey by using Schrodinger's thought experiment as a spring board for extrapolation was that:

Yes, life may very well exist on another planet and our planet sustaining life is enough to assume that it could be found elsewhere. Now, life may also not exist on another planet. Independent of our existence life may or may not exist.

But, and this is the important part, we must assume that it both does and does not exist with equal probability until a time where life is either discovered or proved to not exist elsewhere. This is done through observation of every planet other than our own. Until either outcome has been accomplished we must assume both to be true.

In short: Regardless of our planet sustaining life, life may exist elsewhere. We must assume that it does and does not until a point where life and/or every other planet is observed. To use a cliche, "seeing is believing".

Originally posted by Orgler

Originally posted by spines
So, in short: My theory does not assume that there are similar conditions elsewhere. You have supplemented that assumption yourself.

Yes, but the point is that we don't have the information to "declare" that there is a 50/50 chance of aliens existing and not existing at the same time.

I feel like a record at times. And, please, forgive my frustration.

We do have the information to declare such a statement: Earth sustains life. Other planets we have observed do not sustain life. So, now we know that not all planets sustain life.

Life, if it exists, will continue to exist on other planets regardless of our knowing of it. And, subsequently, life, if it does not exist, will continue to not exist regardless of our knowing of it. So, we are left with attempting to understand the issue of life on other planets by quantifying it within our own minds. We can not observe all other planets and until a point where we either:

a) observe all planets and do not find life

or

b) observe and at some point do find life

Until either of those two options happens we are left only with the logical reasoning that it must both exist and not exist as it related to us. Our observation of either life or a universe of barren planets is when this 50/50 reasoning would have to be replaced be a concrete understanding of life elsewhere in the universe.

Is this clear now? I really do not wish to have to reword and repeat the same idea over and over.

Originally posted by Orgler
You could say that if we knew there were another civilization on another planet, we could question if they still existed, and thus pose the question of them existing and not existing at the same time.

But that would defeat this entire thought experiment. You would already have known that life exists/existed elsewhere in the universe and the 50/50 logic would be a moot point.

Knowing of another civilization is one of the factors that would end the 50/50 logic and allow for concrete knowledge rather than abstract concept.

Originally posted by Orgler
Yes - but we don't know the complete functionality of this universe. Does "luck" play a role?

Which is exactly why we must assume that there is and is not life elsewhere. And until a question with only two possible outcomes is solved one must assume that there is a 50/50 split.

I hope that I have cleared up some more misconceptions as to what it is I am trying to say.

But, if you have any further questions please adress them...I am sure I can bring myself to type up the same theory eight or nine more times.

Originally posted by Mondogiwa
As you point out, it may depend on your view of Schroedinger's Cat, but is that not the same thing as matter of perspective!?

Just so there is no misconception (maybe people aren't reading through the entire thread and just grabbing at the original post): Schrodinger's Cat is a thought experiment which I am using as a spring board and extrapolating into my own theory.

It is simply a theory based on observation. It (I am talking about my theory now) understands that, like Schrodinger's Cat, their is a definite answer to the question.

Yes, the cat is dead or yes there is life on other planets. No, the cat is not dead or no their is not life on other planets.

One must be true but until observed (the contents of the box or all other planets) we can not logically proclaim one outcome to be true over the other. They are, logically in our minds, both true and they continue to be true, logically in our minds, until observation is completed.

I hope it is understood now. Schrodinger was using the idea of the cat to explain how matter on the subatomic level acts dependant on observation.

Please, I beg of all of you, before you comment on Schrodingers cat and how it is to be understood...please read further into the Slit Experiment which shows this theory actually taking place.

I also beg of you to understand that I am simply extrapolating upon this theory to determine that:

a) Life does or does not exist regardless of life on earth.

and

b) Subsequently as intelligent, consious being we must understand that logically point 'a' is true. So therefore we, until total observation can be completed...if total observation can be completed...must assume that there both is and is not life elsewhere.



Thank you for your response.

[edit on 3/29/0707 by spines]

Easy now tigers,

This is getting a little sassy and all, we must find a mutually understandable analogy is all. Also, if Schroedinger's Cat theory is saying that you have to open the box and visually "see" the cat to make a determination, then does that not apply to the exact problem you are trying to address. My point is, if you are going to use that analogy, then there is no further question regarding speculation of the uni/multiverse and aliens. By your analogy and principle, you CANNOT make any statement until you inspect the Cat...so, same way with other planets and so on.

If you make they statement that, "The cat is both alive and dead", then as absurd as it sounds, the converse is accurate as well, "The cat is not alive or dead". I know this may seem like I am splitting hairs but it is in fact correct based on the statement. The analogy claims one thing as a standard, "the cat exists and must therefore be alive or dead".

I like this thread, but Spines...where do your opinions fit in here?? Aside from the theory made by others, are you for or against this theory or are you sort of sifting through it to find your opinion still??

Peace, Mondo

Originally posted by Mondogiwa
Easy now tigers,

This is getting a little sassy and all, we must find a mutually understandable analogy is all.

Like I said, forgive my frustration friend.

Originally posted by Mondogiwa
Also, if Schroedinger's Cat theory is saying that you have to open the box and visually "see" the cat to make a determination, then does that not apply to the exact problem you are trying to address.

That is true. And like I have said, I am simply using Schrodinger's Cat as a spring board for extrapolation. The thought experiment which Schrodinger presents is similar to the one which I present, although on a different scale and with a much larger cat and box.

I am not making a literal metaphor. I am simply using the cat as a base by which to bridge the thought process towards a more abstract version of the former.

Originally posted by Mondogiwa
By your analogy and principle, you CANNOT make any statement until you inspect the Cat...so, same way with other planets and so on.

Sort of. You have evidence of the box and the contents within it. You have, using this evidence, been allowed two possible conclusions. You know one must be true and regardless of your being there one is true. However, as it pertains to your consciousness you must assume that both outcomes are occuring at the same time.

Outcome 'a' and outcome 'b' must both be assumed true until you open the box and inspect its contents. In doing so you allow your conscious to see what has occured regardless of your presence; you have eliminated the problem on non-observation and the 50/50 which it carries with it.

Originally posted by Mondogiwa
If you make they statement that, "The cat is both alive and dead", then as absurd as it sounds, the converse is accurate as well, "The cat is not alive or dead".

This may be a bit over my head so please correct me if I am wrong here. And know that this is a bit of a derailment on my part by picking it apart.

You say that the statement "The cat is both alive and dead" must follow with the converse "The cat is not alive or dead". Is this second statement really the converse of the former?

In the first statement it is being said that the cat is both a) alive and b) dead. In the second statement you are saying that the cat is not a) alive or b) dead.

The first statement is one which questions the cats physical state within existence. It is asking whether or not the cat is in a state of life or a state of death.

It would seem that the second statement is questioning the cats actual existence --as it states that the cat is no longer experiencing the two physical states of existence previously mentioned. It is asking whether or not the cat exists, not in which way it exists.

Like I said, I am probably in a bit over my head but it would seem that those statements are not the converse of eachother.

Originally posted by Mondogiwa
The analogy claims one thing as a standard, "the cat exists and must therefore be alive or dead".

The analogy says that the cats state of being can not be known given the circumstances as long as observation is absent. I am then taking this analogy and exptrapolating it into my own:

Based on the planet Earth sustaining life we have reason to believe that life can be sustained within the universe. We also know that not every planet does sustain life and therefore we have reason to believe that there may not be life elsewhere in our universe.

If we take these two statements we are left with another thought experiment that mimics Schrodinger's...but not literally.

The cat is either alive or dead regardless of our observing it. By that logic their is life or there is not life elsewhere in the universe regardless of our observing it. The key to my extrapolation is observation.

Our observing the state of the cat or possible life on other planets has no cause and affect on the cat being alive or the cat being dead; has no affect on life existing elsewhere or life not existing elsewhere. The issue which is being adressed in both circumstances is what we consciously percieve.

We can not know whether life exists or does not exist on other planets until we have seen all other planets --if we can see all other planets. Therefore, in our conscious life both exists and does not exist elsewhere.

In short: my theory is not attempting to say that our observing that life, or lack there of, makes it so. I am simply saying that in our minds, we can not logically assume that one is true and that one is not. They must both be true until a point at which all planets have been observed. Only then can we be free of the 50/50 logic.

I am sure that this is where most of the confusion is making itself present. I am not stating that our observing determines life existing. I am simply saying that our knowing can not swing either way until observation has been completed; if observation can be completed.

I hope that it is all a bit more clear now.

Originally posted by Mondogiwa
I like this thread, but Spines...where do your opinions fit in here?? Aside from the theory made by others, are you for or against this theory or are you sort of sifting through it to find your opinion still??

Well, the extrapolating from Schrodinger's explination of superposition to a less literal level of basic observation is what I think on this matter. It is my opinion.

If it has been presented elsewhere then I am not aware of it. It is a thought which I have been milling around my head for some time now.

So, my thoughts on this matter are exactly as I have stated. I believe that we can not decide that life does or does not exist without definite observation. We must, for the time being, logically fall into the 50/50 state of mind until life is proven to exist or not exist.

I thank you for the great mind candy my friend. Your contribution to this thread and the challenging of my little theory has made for some great thought.

It should also be kept in mind that Schrodinger was using his thought experiment to back the idea of superposition; a theory which has been proven on the subatomic level with the Slit experiment (amazingly interesting stuff by the way).

I am using his thought experiment as a spring board to my own but I differ from superposition on one crucial point:

Superposition, as shown in the slit experiment, states that the subatomic particles' behavior is dependant on observation.

I am stating that observation does not determine life existing or not existing elsewhere in the universe. But rather, observation determines if we are consciously aware of this life. So, in our minds ('in our minds' being crucial) life both does and does not exist elsewhere. This is the nature of the 50/50 logic as it pertains to life elsewhere in the universe.

In short: The life will exist or not exist regardless of our observation. But total observation is required in order to extinquish the need for the 50/50 logic.

I feel that this is a point which I did not explain suffeciently/clearly enough. This lack of clarity on my part may have been the starting point for much of the confusion within this thread...and also for the bits of frustration on my part.

I realize this and apologize for any misconceptions/confusion that it has caused.

Therefore, you must assume that the cat is both alive and dead.

This is the "question" that I have a problem with grasping. You can speculate that the cat is either alive or dead, but you can not say that the cat is both, because it can not be dead and alive at the same time - that is a logical flaw. I understand that you must keep both options in mind, but ultimately, one of those options are wrong, which you must also keep in mind.

This is done through observation of every planet other than our own. Until either outcome has been accomplished we must assume both to be true.

Yes, I understand this, but like I said, the theory is both true and not true. It is true because what other chance besides 50/50 is there? But, it is also not true because we do not know what exactly "alive" or "not alive" means.

If everything is as materialistic as it seems (i.e., there is no "god", no destiny etc), then this theory applies very well. But, if there is a god, and this universe is only meant for us, then the chance is not 50/50, but rather 0 chance that something else exists. We do not know this, thus we can not, at least not yet, take the assumption right now that the theory applies.

For example, at least what I know, the scientific community rather deny life elsewhere because we haven't observed any. In another concept, non-existant until proven otherwise. This same theory could apply to ghosts, or the Mothman, or Men in Black, the new world order, and so on. People must assume that everything exist until proven otherwise, and evidence is really scarce in some cases. Of course, life on other worlds is a much more appliable subject than the MiBs or the Mothman, but still, we can not just assume anything.

Look, I'm sorry if I seem thick - to slash it down to the sentence, what I mean is that I don't like assuming anything until there is information enough to do so, thus, I would rather call it speculation until assumption can be made otherwise.

And like I said, the theory looks good, but I disagree with some components of it.

Spines and Orgler,

I love this thread you guys but so far I tend to gravitate towrds the speculation idea made in the above post. Maybe it's wayyyy to early for me since I was out wayyyy to late last night, but after reviewing the thread again, I think we may be oversimplifying the idea a bit. Conjecture?? Speculation?? 50/50 Theory?? In essence, is it not all relatively the same thing? We do now know FOR SURE, therefore we rationalize why we guess the ways that we do!

Just some food for thought as I go to get some food for my brain, by way of a breakfast taco.

Peace, Mondo

Originally posted by Orgler

Therefore, you must assume that the cat is both alive and dead.

This is the "question" that I have a problem with grasping. You can speculate that the cat is either alive or dead, but you can not say that the cat is both, because it can not be dead and alive at the same time - that is a logical flaw. I understand that you must keep both options in mind, but ultimately, one of those options are wrong, which you must also keep in mind.

Ah, it seems that we are actually on the same page here...you just don't know it yet. Haha.

You must assume that it is either alive or dead; those are the only two possibilities. You know that at any given time the cat is one of those two possibilities.

Now, without opening the box, what state of physical being is the cat? Is it more logically foolish to assume that the cat is dead? Is it more logically foolish to assume that the cat is alive? Or is it more logically sound to assume that it must be one of those two physical states of being at any one time while in the box?

It would seem to me that assuming one state over the other is logically foolish, while assuming that it is either alive or dead at any given time until observation is logically sound. If we are assuming it is either alive or dead at any given moment then we are saying it is both alive and dead until observation.

Keep in mind, we are not saying that the cat exists as both an alive and dead being. We are saying that until observation occurs by way of the observer openining the box, the state of the cat (as we are aware of it) remains in a 50/50.

It is at any one moment, as far as we can consciously perceive, alive or dead and therefore, until your observation takes place, must be assumed to be both; assuming one over the other is a logical flaw. Is it not?

Originally posted by Orgler

This is done through observation of every planet other than our own. Until either outcome has been accomplished we must assume both to be true.

Yes, I understand this, but like I said, the theory is both true and not true. It is true because what other chance besides 50/50 is there? But, it is also not true because we do not know what exactly "alive" or "not alive" means.

Ah, now you are thinking like Stanley Weinbaum.

Life would be a hard thing to describe if we are forced to think outside of our preconceptions concerning life. Unlike Weinbaum we have the harder issue of not attempting to understand what a differing form of intelligence and reasoning would be like but rather what another form of life entirelly.

I suppose that we would have to be quite extensive in our examination of each new world we encounter. Life, I suppose, would be defined as it is observed. Movement, growth, active function (such as plants holding a function on our planet), death (although not everything may die), ect...

It is a hard thing to define for sure and something which I will now be giving much thought to.

Originally posted by Orgler
If everything is as materialistic as it seems (i.e., there is no "god", no destiny etc), then this theory applies very well. But, if there is a god, and this universe is only meant for us, then the chance is not 50/50, but rather 0 chance that something else exists.

I am forced to disagree. I do not see why a god being or destiny would make this theory more/less relevant. My reasoning is this:

You seem to be implying that if there is a god then the universe is only for the life on earth to occupy. Why is this? What is there to say that a god(s) did not create life elsewhere within the universe?

If, assuming a god, this other life does in fact exist then we are still blind to it. Our existence would still imply that life is possible within our universe and it would be illogical to assume that it only exists on our planet. The 50/50 logic would still apply until a point at which it can be proven either way. A god figure does not seem to displace much water in this theory...or so it seems to me.

Originally posted by Orgler
For example, at least what I know, the scientific community rather deny life elsewhere because we haven't observed any. In another concept, non-existant until proven otherwise. This same theory could apply to ghosts, or the Mothman, or Men in Black, the new world order, and so on. People must assume that everything exist until proven otherwise, and evidence is really scarce in some cases. Of course, life on other worlds is a much more appliable subject than the MiBs or the Mothman, but still, we can not just assume anything.

We are not assuming that life exists on other planets. We are assuming that it could exist elsewhere (once again, assuming based on the fact that Earth sustains life so we know that the universe is capable of supporting life).

When we assume that life could exist we must also assume that it may not exist. Those are the only two possibilities in this 50/50 case: Life either exists elsewhere in our universe or it does not.

Now, when you take the theory and attempt to apply it to things such as ghosts and the mothman the system would break down; matters such as these could not apply to the 50/50 logic. The reason for this is simple: Unlike the question of life elsewhere in the universe (it either is or is not there), things such as ghosts and the 'mothman' have many other possible outcomes. They could be hoaxes, they could be the mind superimposing subconscious thoughts into the conscious, they could be hallucinations, they could be electrical variances, ect...

The point is that things such as ghosts have to many possible variables to apply to the same 50/50 logic. It is not, in the cases of ghosts and the mothman and such, simply a question of existense or non-existense.

Rather, the phenomenon could be proven to exist but not be what we believe ghosts to be. It could exist and be a number of different things. It could also not exist and have a number of different reasons as to why it does not.

Do you see why my 50/50 logic could not apply to everything, but rather only those situations which allow for only two possible outcomes?

---

Once again, thank you for the thought candy and the chance to further disect my own thoughts.

Originally posted by Mondogiwa
Conjecture?? Speculation?? 50/50 Theory?? In essence, is it not all relatively the same thing?

Speculation and conjecture allow for many possible outcomes. However, my 50/50 theory applys to situations where there are only two possible outcomes (as stated in the above reply).

I feel it is important to stress once again that in cases such as life being possible elsewhere in the universe the two possible outcomes pertain only to our knowledge of this life; regardless of us it will or will not exist. The 50/50 logic is simply a way in which to logically assume the nature of this independently existing/non-existing life as it pertains to our own consciousness.

As you yourself said my friend:

Originally posted by Mondogiwa
We do now know FOR SURE, therefore we rationalize why we guess the ways that we do!

Whether or not you realize it you have just summed up my entire point. The life is or is not out there and we are simply finding the most logical and rational way to understand that.

---

Oh and, breakfast taco?

The reason for this is simple: Unlike the question of life elsewhere in the universe (it either is or is not there), things such as ghosts and the 'mothman' have many other possible outcomes. They could be hoaxes, they could be the mind superimposing subconscious thoughts into the conscious, they could be hallucinations, they could be electrical variances, ect...

Yes - but just like aliens they either exist or they do not. Aliens could just as well be interdimensional beings, or some dimensional disturbance, hell, why not the same beings as the mothman? What is there to support the theory of them being aliens, except that they "look like" they're coming from another world?

My meaning is that everything paranormal we know of can be many different things, some can be the same, and for that matter, we could be imagening it for one reason and the other. But we know that aliens, in its meaning, can or can not exist.