It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
RUInsane
This blog post had me thinking that people may be conflating two related, but distinct issues here on the Alien/ET hypothesis, or "ETH". The basic idea is that we haven't found signs of intelligent societies (e.g. radiation leaks that could be attributed to advanced societies, such as a specific radio frequency band), therefore we probably haven't been visited.
I think this is hasty reasoning.
RUInsane
My guess is that skeptics think detection of ETI implies its effective existence. If ETI hasn't been detected, it can't visit us...because we have no way of confirming their existence otherwise. It's a Catch-22. But of course, that logic doesn't explain the numerous close-encounter reports we've had post-WWII. So, I'm wondering if there's other ways to establish visitation aside from ETI detection.
tanka418
If we were to use the Quantum view, I can nearly prove life in at least two locations; Zeta 2 Reticuli, and Tau Ceti. I could also demonstrate a very good probability of visitation (though there is a necessary "logic" component as well).
draknoir2
tanka418
If we were to use the Quantum view, I can nearly prove life in at least two locations; Zeta 2 Reticuli, and Tau Ceti. I could also demonstrate a very good probability of visitation (though there is a necessary "logic" component as well).
Funny - none of my math teachers ever gave credit for "near proofs".
draknoir2
tanka418
If we were to use the Quantum view, I can nearly prove life in at least two locations; Zeta 2 Reticuli, and Tau Ceti. I could also demonstrate a very good probability of visitation (though there is a necessary "logic" component as well).
Funny - none of my math teachers ever gave credit for "near proofs"
.
tanka418I could also demonstrate a very good probability of visitation (though there is a necessary "logic" component as well).
waltwillis
draknoir2
tanka418
If we were to use the Quantum view, I can nearly prove life in at least two locations; Zeta 2 Reticuli, and Tau Ceti. I could also demonstrate a very good probability of visitation (though there is a necessary "logic" component as well).
Funny - none of my math teachers ever gave credit for "near proofs"
.
Have you heard about network theories or calculus?
Never owned a slide rule?
How about telling that the NASA and see if you get hired!
draknoir2
tanka418I could also demonstrate a very good probability of visitation (though there is a necessary "logic" component as well).
Yeah, that pesky "logic" component.
Fortunately you remain unimpeded.
Yes, well some of us live with logic 24/7/365 as it were, others; not so much I guess.
Software is very demanding in that regard.
BTW: It seem obvious you have the "Relativistic" POV.
Good luck with that; just understand, that it will not allow you to grow and evolve very much...it is very limited.
ZetaRediculian
reply to post by tanka418
Yes, well some of us live with logic 24/7/365 as it were, others; not so much I guess.
Software is very demanding in that regard.
BTW: It seem obvious you have the "Relativistic" POV.
Good luck with that; just understand, that it will not allow you to grow and evolve very much...it is very limited.
It really strikes me as odd that every other post is about how you are a programmer. As if this is some remarkable credential that gives more weight to your claims. I can tell you that it does not.
the real world is flooded with programmers and coders. They are a dime a dozen. This is my world too and yet I don't feel the need to remind you on every post or at all. Programming, designing software, databases, interfaces and whatever else is thrown at me is something i do for a living and yet i had very little formal training in any of that. It is not rocket science. In fact anyone can learn it.
you also keep talking about "Bayesian inference" as if it is some high level statistical math. It is not. It is actually rather simplistic. I have asked you to provide some examples where you can infer an unknown based on an unknown set of outcomes. You can't. In fact Bayesian inference requires a sample of known outcomes. Once you have your set of known outcomes, you can then "infer" an outcome based on a new unique set of information where the outcome is unknown.
what you seem to be doing is inferring life on another planet based on guesses and speculation as your sample data instead of known outcomes. You then claim that you can do this with some high degree of accuracy. You can't. If you can, please give an example of how you can with a real world example. Why do you avoid this?
there is nothing wrong with guessing and speculating but there is something wrong with passing that on as "real" data. Guessing and speculating does contribute to scientific progress but they call it guessing and speculating not proof.edit on 3-2-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)edit on 3-2-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)
Imagination is more important than mathematical skills.
Counting and playing with beans represents only about one half
of the equation to the discoveries in science.
In fact, the quantifying of most scientific discovery is done after
there has been a factual observation in new science.
RUInsane
My guess is that skeptics think detection of ETI implies its effective existence. If ETI hasn't been detected, it can't visit us...because we have no way of confirming their existence otherwise. It's a Catch-22. But of course, that logic doesn't explain the numerous close-encounter reports we've had post-WWII. So, I'm wondering if there's other ways to establish visitation aside from ETI detection.
draknoir2
tanka418
If we were to use the Quantum view, I can nearly prove life in at least two locations; Zeta 2 Reticuli, and Tau Ceti. I could also demonstrate a very good probability of visitation (though there is a necessary "logic" component as well).
Funny - none of my math teachers ever gave credit for "near proofs".
I'm sure they would have a lot to teach me about what it's like to exist as a probability.
ZetaRediculian
reply to post by waltwillis
Imagination is more important than mathematical skills.
Counting and playing with beans represents only about one half
of the equation to the discoveries in science.
In fact, the quantifying of most scientific discovery is done after
there has been a factual observation in new science.
I don't disagree but lets not confuse imagination for actual data. saying "I imagine that life exists on planet x" is different than saying "I have calculated with high degree of certainty that life exist on planet x". Math being math, you need to show your work.
One uses imagination, speculation and some assumptions to assert an interesting idea for further investigation. The other is BS.
ZetaRediculian
reply to post by waltwillis
Imagination is more important than mathematical skills.
Counting and playing with beans represents only about one half
of the equation to the discoveries in science.
In fact, the quantifying of most scientific discovery is done after
there has been a factual observation in new science.
I don't disagree but lets not confuse imagination for actual data. saying "I imagine that life exists on planet x" is different than saying "I have calculated with high degree of certainty that life exist on planet x". Math being math, you need to show your work.
One uses imagination, speculation and some assumptions to assert an interesting idea for further investigation. The other is BS.
ZetaRediculian
reply to post by Blue Shift
I'm sure they would have a lot to teach me about what it's like to exist as a probability.
"probability" implies a calculation based on "knowns". Since there are no known aliens they can only exist as a possibility. Is it possible the next card is an ace? Yes. Knowing the number of aces, we can calculate a probability. Is the next card an alien card from space? It is possible but since I know of no other alien cards from space, there is no probability that can be determined.
-- www.merriam-webster.com...
1: the quality or state of being probable
2: something (as an event or circumstance) that is probable
3 a (1) : the ratio of the number of outcomes in an exhaustive set of equally likely outcomes that produce a given event to
the total number of possible outcomes
(2) : the chance that a given event will occur
b : a branch of mathematics concerned with the study of probabilities
4: a logical relation between statements such that evidence confirming one confirms the other to some degree