One of the silliest questions in the world - Are we alone in the universe?

reply to post by redoubt


Good post and that's exactly right. In 2010 based on the available evidence, it's a silly question.

Originally posted by tigpoppa
People who dont believe there is life anywhere are the kind of rigid people who go through life unhappy with things because they only see them as black and white.

The question of alien existence is black and white, though. They either exist or they don't. They can't exist only 1% or 50%. They either have to exist 100% or not at all. Like yourself, for example. Do you exist? Or is there only a 23% chance you exist?

At this moment in time, considering all the available evidence and what we know about how life finds itself on a planet, there's no proof aliens exist. Now, if there is no proof aliens exist, is it all that silly to think they might not actually exist? I have no proof monkeys have ever flown out my butt, either. Should I just assume that at some point when I wasn't looking that they did?

I would hardly call basing one's understanding on available evidence "silly." Basing one's beliefs on hypothetical evidence is called "religion."

reply to post by Blue Shift


What???

It's not black and white and sadly this is the nonsense you have to deal with when debating skeptics in these areas. They want to talk in absolutes because they can't debate the available evidence.

Prove to me you exist. Are you a hologram or a simulation? Do you have an objective existence? What are you made of? If you say matter how would you know?

Nobody has ever touched matter. When you touch a hard table or a soft pillow the electrons from the table repel against the electrons in your hand and you perceive a hard table or a soft pillow.

So are you just an information construct? Do you have an objective existence or an existence based on perception of a simulated or holographic reality?

It's really sad that skeptics try to act like we can only talk about these things in absolute or black and white terms.

Most educated people believe that there is life elsewhere in the universe. There maybe life found here in our own solar system on the moons of Jupiter and Saturn soon, when planed probes are built and launched. The Drake Equation states quite simply that the probability of life is 1. Not .75 not .5 not .25 but 1!!! It's pretty much a given. There is life outside of Earth. Am I saying that it's Star Wars out there with Star Cruisers and X-Wing Fighters flying around? No I'm not. I'm saying there IS life outside of Earth's Atmosphere. Most of it will be single celled organisms with some simple multi-cellular animals and plants thrown in. Such as Lichens and Plankton.

Yet some people will argue against there being life outside of Earth even after it's been videoed, collected, launched back to Earth, dissected, and given a scientific name. It would just shatter their belief system. They just can't handle the idea that the human race is not the god given end to creation! That is the main reason people argue against the possibility of life outside of Earth's Atmosphere - Fear that they weren't Made in God's Image. Well I hate to break it to them, but even the Vatican believes there is life out there. The Vatican -Embracing the Probability of Extraterrestrial Life

reply to post by Matrix Rising

I suppose your definition of silly question differs from my definition. To me, if the answer is unknown, then it's not a silly question.

Like I said before, I believe the answer to the question is that we are not alone, but I don't know the answer. What I believe is irrelevant; until I know the answer -- no matter what the evidence -- the question will not be silly (at least not to me, anyway).

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
What you and others want to do is debate these things in terms of absolutes. This is what skeptics do when it comes to Ufology because they can't debate the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE.

Your missing my metaphysical meaning of "absolute". The answer the the question "Are we Alone" already exists, even without humans around to ponder the probability. That's what I mean by "absolute". Say humans never existed to ponder those odds and put forth all of the evidence for ET life -- the answer to "are we alone" does not change.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
So in you're example of the coins, I would be saying,"It's not likely that all the coins landed on heads." If evidence comes along that I was wrong and they all landed on heads then I will accept that all the coins landed on heads. But based on probability and things like the Bell Curve, I would say with confidence that it's more likely that you have a mixture of heads and tails and less likely that they all landed on heads.

Again, your missing the point. I'm saying the answer (which is unkown, because the room is dark) is YES, the 100 coins are in fact all heads -- although nobody knows that they are all heads. Even though you have probabilities and evidence on your side telling me that they are most likely NOT all heads, you would be wrong -- although you would not know you were wrong. Based on your probabilities, you would continue to believe the coins are not all heads, even though the truth of the matter (which is an unknown truth -- but the Real Truth nevertheless) is that they ARE all heads.

Your answer should be:
"they are probably not all heads, but I don't know for sure."
similarly:
"We probably are NOT alone in the universe, but I don't know for sure".

The important thing here is that the most probable answer could be the wrong answer. The "unknown truth" in this case is the true answer to the question "are we alone".

The answer already exists (i.e., the coins have already been tossed). Evidence won't change the outcome to that toss of the coins. Evidence does not make the Truth any "more true or less true". There is no such thing as more true or less true; the Truth is the Truth, no matter what the evidence tells us.

"Truth" is what I'm saying is absolute.


You said:

If evidence comes along that I was wrong and they all landed on heads then I will accept that all the coins landed on heads.

I'm saying the only evidence that can prove the coins are all heads is by turning on the light and looking. Then we would KNOW the answer. Once we know that the coins all landed on heads, that would prove that all of your evidence to the contrary was irrelevant.

Until we "turn on the light" and find out the TRUE answer to "Are we alone" (i.e., we find an ET), then the evidence is -- metaphysically speaking -- irrelevant.

It doesn't matter if there are billions of stars in billions of galaxies.

If life began on Earth, and the probability that life will evolve on a planet is 10^-1000, then it's very probable life is unique to the Earth.

I'm not saying that really *is the probability... I'm saying we have no idea what the probability really is, so we can't know how probable it is that life exists elsewhere.

For example, we don't know whether it's necessary to have a moon like ours for life to begin and evolve. If a moon *is necessary, how probable is it that an Earth-like planet will also have a moon like Luna?

We don't know how many improbabilities are strung together to have made life possible here, so we can't have a clue about its probability anywhere else.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Again, that doesn't make any sense.

Of course there's an absolute truth and nobody has claimed otherwise.

This is just another way to try and debate against an absolute instead of the available evidence.

It makes no sense.

We always weigh the available evidence as to what's most likely vs. what's less likely because there's usually an absence of absolute proof.

You're trying to debate against something that I never claimed. I never said there wasn't an absolute but that never stops us from weighing the available evidence in the absence of absolute truth.

It seems skeptics try to throw out all reason and logic when it comes to these areas. We always weigh the available evidence in all walks of life.

reply to post by aethron


Of course it matters that there's billions of galaxies and planets.

You said:

If life began on Earth, and the probability that life will evolve on a planet is 10^-1000, then it's very probable life is unique to the Earth.

How would you ever gauge this unless you make the silly leap in logic that all life in the universe has to evolve in the exact same way it did on earth?

Say we find out that it took ABCDEF conditions for life to evolve on earth but it only took ABCD conditions for life to evolve on another planet.

From our perspective life may be improbable but from a different perspective it may look common.

So at the end of the day the point is moot when weighing the available evidence.

reply to post by Matrix Rising

The potential answers to the question "Are We Alone" is binary:
Yes or No; "1" or "0". THAT'S what I mean by it being absolute. The answer is one thing or the other -- it's not "fuzzy". It's not in between.

The evidence cannot make it "more probable" or "less probable". It either "is" or it "isn't" -- i.e., the ultimate answer to the question is absolute, and the evidence is irrelevant. The answer would still exist in the absence of evidence. In fact, there could be no evidence whatsoever that ET exists, and the answer could still be "ETs do in fact exist".

Your answer, based on probabilities, may be not absolute -- but that's your answer, which is not the ultimate true answer. The ultimate true answer (not your answer, not Mike_A's answer, or not my answer, but rather THE answer) to "Are we alone" is a definite "Yes" or a definite "No".

Any answer we humans give is only a guess, and because our answer is only a guess (because we don't yet know the true answer), the question is not silly.



[edit on 8/30/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Anything can be broken down to a ye/no question and there's an absolute truth to the questions but in most cases we don't have absolute proof so humans use reason and logic to weigh the available evidence as to what's most likely and what's less likely.

Will I still be married in 5 years?
Are there Parallel universes?
Is there a Higgs Boson?
Is he guilty or innocent?

There's an absolute truth to all these questions but you're trying to make a silly argument to avoid debating the available evidence because you want to talk in absolutes.

In a court case they reach a verdict but this verdict isn't absolute truth and this is why they have appeals and some cases get overturned.

The Jury can just reach a conclusion based on the available evidence. Like I said we do this in all walks of life but skeptics get a case of the stupids when debating in these areas.

reply to post by aethron


You have revived my faith in the scientific literacy of this site!

double post

[edit on 31-8-2010 by Mike_A]

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

Anything can be broken down to a ye/no question and there's an absolute truth to the questions but in most cases we don't have absolute proof so humans use reason and logic to weigh the available evidence as to what's most likely and what's less likely.

Will I still be married in 5 years?
Are there Parallel universes?
Is there a Higgs Boson?
Is he guilty or innocent?...

Will I still be married in 5 years?
-- We won't know for sure until 5 years from now.

Are there Parallel universes?
-- We won't truly know until we find one.

Is there a Higgs Boson?
-- We won't truly know until we find one.

Is he guilty or innocent?
-- We will never truly know; only the accused knows for sure.
Even a court of law can't tell us whether he actually did it or not...A court of law doesn't tell us if a person truly committed a crime or not.

and, I will add:

Are we Alone?
-- We won't truly know until we find an ET.

We can speculate, based on science and probabilities. However, the true answer to the question can't be deduced, and can only be known for sure when we meet an ET -- similar to your questions above.

Therefore, the question is not silly.


Again, the issue here seems to be what YOU say constitutes a silly question. For example, is it likely that life on Earth will be wiped out by a Gamma Ray Burst tomorrow? No -- the odds are quite against that happening. However, does that mean it couldn't happen? No -- it could very well happen, although it most probably will not.

So asking the question "Will life on Earth be destroyed by a Gamma Ray Burst tomorrow?" is not a silly question to me.



[edit on 8/31/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Again, you keep coming with these silly questions to try to avoid the available evidence and you're just proving my point.

Of course there's an absolute truth about everything but in most cases we don't have absolute evidence of that absolute truth so we weigh the available evidence.

Do you want to avoid debating the available evidence that bad that you're willing to make these crazy arguments?

You're making me look like a psychic when I say skeptics want to avoid the evidence at all cost.

Will there be a gamma ray burst that destroys earth tomorrow?

Will there be a comet that destroys earth tomorrow?

Will a meteor destroy earth tomorrow?

These questions have NOTHING to do with weighing the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE as to what's most likely vs what's less likely when it comes life in the universe.

You act as if humans are these stupid beings that don't have a faculty called reason and logic that we use to get to the absolute truth in the absence of absolute evidence.

Please find a new argument because you look silly.

You're debating about absolute truth when I never said I was talking about absolute truth.

You're basically saying if we don't have absolute knowledge about something we can't weigh the available evidence.

I'm glad most people don't hold this crazy viewpoint or we would still be sleeping in caves because nobody would take the available evidence and build a hut until they had absolute proof that a hut could be built.

Look at this scenario:

Say a person says 1 of these 2 people will die tomorrow.

1. A cancer patient on life support who's in and out of consciousness

or

2. A healthy basketball player in the prime of his life.

Who's more likely to die?

Of course it's the cancer patient based on the available evidence but this isn't absolute truth because the patient could recover and the basketball player could get into a fatal accident.

This doesn't prevent human beings from weighing the available evidence as to what's most likely and what's less likely.

I'm sure you understand this but skeptics in these areas get very silly. We always weigh the available evidence in the absence of absolute truth. You're making yourself look bad because it's obvious you can't debate the available evidence so you try to avoid the available evidence with these silly arguments.

You keep talking about the available evidence but you’re not taking into account the fact that any conclusion must be within the limits that the evidence will allow. Do you not agree with this?

I’ll have one last going at trying to illustrate this point.

Let’s say that we find a disease in a single person and we want to know how probable it is that this disease exists in others. We know of course that there are a lot of people in the world and we know that a lot of these will provide conditions in which the disease could survive. From this information alone can we determine whether it is probable that this disease exists in other people? If so how would we go about determining this and if not what information would we need in addition to that which we already have?

reply to post by Matrix Rising

Of course it matters that there's billions of galaxies and planets.

Well i suppose it could, in a sense...

It's an anthropic argument, but maybe life wouldn't evolve in any universe that had *less than the number of stars we see in the sky, because that's how many stars are necessary to overcome the improbability of life evolving just once.

Originally posted by Matrix_Rising
You're not making any sense.

you're not making much sense.

Again this doesn't make any sense.

That makes zero sense

Mike A you're not making any sense.

this is the nonsense you have to deal with when debating skeptics

that doesn't make any sense.

It makes no sense.

That makes no sense.

This makes zero sense

This is a hypothetical that doesn't make any sense

Again, you're not making any sense.

You're analogy doesn't make any sense in the context of this debate.

You're not making any sense because you're trying to debate a hypothetical scenario

you're not making any sense yet again.

This is why you're not making any sense.

You just keep repeating the same nonsense.

are you just typing nonsense?

No, Ms. Rising. You are.

The arguments and statements you call 'nonsense' are nothing of the kind. I understand them perfectly;and judging from the replies on the thread, no-one else has any problem making sense of them either. The only person having trouble with them seems to be you.

Why do you think that is? Chew on that question for a bit.

I've been following this thread for a while, but have chosen to stay disengaged because I know what an impossible case you are. I post now merely to warn your interlocuters, who must be tearing their hair in frustration at your antics, that you are a special, incorrigible case, best left alone. No-one can possibly lose an argument against you, but no-one will ever win one, either.

Yes, yes, I know--that makes no sense.

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
....Look at this scenario:

Say a person says 1 of these 2 people will die tomorrow.

1. A cancer patient on life support who's in and out of consciousness

or

2. A healthy basketball player in the prime of his life.

Who's more likely to die?

Of course it's the cancer patient based on the available evidence but this isn't absolute truth because the patient could recover and the basketball player could get into a fatal accident.

This doesn't prevent human beings from weighing the available evidence as to what's most likely and what's less likely.

EXACTLY!

So -- yes -- it is much more likely that the cancer patient will die tomorrow...
...HOWEVER, as you said, it is also possible that the basketball player will die before the cancer patient.

Therefore, it would not be a silly question to ask "Could a perfectly healthy basketball player die tomorrow while the cancer patient lives for at least another day?

You admit that it is possible for a gamma ray burst to kill all humans on Earth tomorrow, therefore, it would not be silly to ask "Could a gamma ray burst kill all humans tomorrow?" Sure it could. It's not likely, but it could (so it's not a silly question to ask).

It is also not silly to wonder "Could humans be alone in the universe?"
It's not likely that we are alone, but the question is not a 'silly' one to ask.

I truly don't understand what it is you have against this perfectly benign question. Why are you so gung-ho against a simple question being asked that you would go as far to say that asking the question is silly?



[edit on 9/1/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Again, your not making any sense because these are silly questions.

Could a healthy basketball player die instead of a sick cancer patient is a silly question because of course he could die in an accident or he could have a health problem that's undiagnosed.

Of course it's possible but the question doesn't preclude a human being with common sense and reason weighing the available evidence before the event occurs.

What your saying is just stupid with all due respect.

Your saying we can't weigh the available evidence as to what's most likely vs what's less likely because we don't have absolute proof.

So a Jury should say we can't convict someone because we don't have absolute truth and it's possible that he/she is innocent.

A police officer could say, we don't have absolute truth that he's did the crime so we can't arrest him even though all the evidence points to his guilt but it's possible that he didn't do it.

We would be a society stuck in the mud if the world operated under this silly philosophy.

You're saying just because something is possible that stops us from using reason and logic to weigh the available evidence in the absence of absolute truth.

reply to post by Matrix Rising

Again, your not making any sense

What your saying is just stupid

I do believe she has me on Ignore.