It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# We Haven't Been Visited? Examining Arguments Against ET Visitation.

page: 4
10
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 04:24 PM

Blue Shift

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 want to communicate with these nearly living aliens. Ride in their 83% spaceships, maybe. I'm sure they would have a lot to teach me about what it's like to exist as a probability.

Why don't you ask yourself what it is like to exist as a probability?

We all exist only as probabilities...seems to work fine for most...

Y'all misunderstand the nature of probability...

Or...take a look at all the light around you...it exists in one of two states; static, as a particle, existing and easily measurable in space-time. Or, as a wave, dynamic, and not easily measurable, propagating through space-time. Two possible views of the Universe; static, unchanging, vs Dynamic, ever-changing.

All things exist as a "probability wave".

posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 04:30 PM

tanka418
Y'all misunderstand the nature of probability...

Or...take a look at all the light around you...it exists in one of two states; static, as a particle, existing and easily measurable in space-time. Or, as a wave, dynamic, and not easily measurable, propagating through space-time. Two possible views of the Universe; static, unchanging, vs Dynamic, ever-changing.

All things exist as a "probability wave".

Cognito sum ergo. And that equals a probability of 100%. As for aliens, however...
edit on 3-2-2014 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 07:44 PM

Blue Shift

tanka418
Y'all misunderstand the nature of probability...

Or...take a look at all the light around you...it exists in one of two states; static, as a particle, existing and easily measurable in space-time. Or, as a wave, dynamic, and not easily measurable, propagating through space-time. Two possible views of the Universe; static, unchanging, vs Dynamic, ever-changing.

All things exist as a "probability wave".

Cognito sum ergo. And that equals a probability of 100%. As for aliens, however...
edit on 3-2-2014 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)

The problem with that is that it only works for the "I", the "NOT I" remains unproven except for that which is observed directly, and that experience serves only the "I".

So as I said...probability...by the way a probability of ether 1(one) or 0 (zero) are "ideal" states, and as such don't exist.

posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 09:19 PM

Everyone percieves reality a certain way. Some skeptics could see a ufo dangling in front of them and would dismiss it as a chinese lantern in the sky. Seeing the big picture is a skill.
edit on 3-2-2014 by foxykittybite because: text edit.

posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 09:35 PM

Blue Shift
I will agree, however, that consensus is more important than statistics. There is absolutely no hard evidence that dreams exist. If I was the only person who dreamed and I told people I had pictures play out in my head when I sleep, they'd think I was insane. But since pretty much everybody dreams, then we all pretty much agree that they exist.

It appears to me that you enjoy playing the devils advocate more
then sharing what you do know with others.

Have you shown anything new that you can speak first hand about?

Do you want to be thought of as an original thinker or the original
stinker?

How about sharing some of the vast and varied general fund of
knowledge you have come to understand over the many years.

Don’t hold back…tell us how you truly feel!

posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 09:38 PM

waltwillis
Do you believe in God? Have you ever seen God?

Many people lack the faith of a mustard seed.

Now if your answer to the two questions is no, then that would
put you in the vast minority of the world population.

I don't care about popularity contests and never have. I care about reality. What is often popular is seldom correct.

The majority of the world's population is scientifically illiterate so I am not surprised that they blindly believe in religious dogma.

edit on 3-2-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 09:40 PM

foxykittybite

Everyone percieves reality a certain way. Some skeptics could see a ufo dangling in front of them and would dismiss it as a chinese lantern in the sky. Seeing the big picture is a skill.
edit on 3-2-2014 by foxykittybite because: text edit.

That's objective reality based on hard facts is important.

The universe doesn't care what any of use thinks we see. Reality is quantifiable.

posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 09:42 PM

tanka418
Two possible views of the Universe; static, unchanging, vs Dynamic, ever-changing.

All things exist as a "probability wave".

You lost all credibility with the idea that there is any validity to a "static universe" which would fly in the face of all we've observed about it.

posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 10:05 PM
For me the idea is simple...

If ET did visit us. We would only find evidence if they wanted us to.

People looking for evidence are essentially trying to outsmart something / someone who is clearly superior to them.

The whole idea is an oxymoron.

posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 10:09 PM

tanka418
Two possible views of the Universe; static, unchanging, vs Dynamic, ever-changing.

All things exist as a "probability wave".

You lost all credibility with the idea that there is any validity to a "static universe" which would fly in the face of all we've observed about it.

You misunderstand my use of the word...replace it with "relativistic".

posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 10:12 PM

For me the idea is simple...

If ET did visit us. We would only find evidence if they wanted us to.

People looking for evidence are essentially trying to outsmart something / someone who is clearly superior to them.

The whole idea is an oxymoron.

Extraterrestrials are not superior to Terrestrial Humans. And everyone, Terrestrials, extraterrestrials overlook thing, and make mistakes...hence, there is evidence left behind...there are also instances where there are no options...evidence is left.

posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 10:22 PM

ZetaRediculian : 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.

tanka418: Not True.

Then you can determine the probability of drawing an alien card from space from a standard deck of cards where alien cards from space are not known to have ever been drawn? What is the probability?

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(knowns) in an exhaustive set of equally likely outcomes(knowns) 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
-- www.merriam-webster.com...

Lets look at the examples from the same definition:

Examples of PROBABILITY

There is a low probability that you will be chosen.
There is some probability of rain tomorrow.
With the dark clouds moving in, rain seems more like a probability than a possibility.
The probability of a coin coming up heads is one out of every two tries.

"being chosen" is known to happen.
"rain" is known to happen.
"dark clouds"...happen
coin toss coming up tails...happens
All examples of known outcomes.

the probability of a coin toss coming up alien? it has never happened and so there is no math that can be applied.

Probability is simply (though frequently not so simple) a statement of "likelihood". Using anything "known", while making the whole process much simpler, is not required.

Awesome. now provide a real example where you can predict the likelihood of something occurring without it being known to actually have happened. You can't. The ONLY way to do that is to make up your sample outcomes and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that but your final number is speculative and not actually a real probability based on real outcomes.

So far every definition and example you have provided uses "known outcomes". Even the very definition of your "Bayesian inference" states that it needs a "Sample".

you provided:

Bayesian inference is a collection of statistical methods which are based on Bayes’ formula. Statistical inference is the procedure of drawing conclusions about a population or process based on a sample.

Sounds like a "Sample" is requirement. A "Sample" is real data based on real "known" things. Just like the OTHER definition you provided gives the examples of known outcomes in order to produce a probability.

edit on 3-2-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-2-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 11:33 PM

Again, as I have said before; We are NOT using simple models like a deck of cards, or a coin toss, roll of dice, etc. As I have also said before, the method II use is Bayesian inference, which is almost ideally suited to discern the "unknown". You also seem to misunderstand the nature of what we are looking at...there are plenty of "knowns"...though the degree of confidence must be considered (it would seem that you have very low "interval of confidence" for modern science).

A quick note on samples: We have a rather large body of scientific knowledge to draw upon, much of it is based upon observation of nature...which is what we need for our samples. So...you see, we have plenty of sample data.

edit on 3-2-2014 by tanka418 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 05:51 AM

tanka418

Again, as I have said before; We are NOT using simple models like a deck of cards, or a coin toss, roll of dice, etc. As I have also said before, the method II use is Bayesian inference, which is almost ideally suited to discern the "unknown".

All you have to do is give an example. In order to discern the "unknown" you need a sample of outcomes where your "unknown" has occurred. That is how Bayesian Inference works and you CAN use Bayesian on "simple models". The math does not change as the complexity of the model goes up.

Here, I will provide you an example: I want to predict if it will rain tomorrow. I build a model by inputting a sample of data that occurred the day before it did rain and a sample of data that occurred the day before it didn't rain. Clouds, wind speed, humidity, the direction my dog pooed, etc. I now have a new set of data. what is the likelihood of it raining tomorrow(unknown)? Its cloudy, wind is 15 mph, humidity is high, dog pooed facing west. I input the new data and get a prediction; 88% chance of rain tomorrow. What I cant predict is if it will rain aliens or not. If it does in fact rain aliens, I NOW have new "known" information to build a model and now can predict that.

Please give an example of using Bayesian Inference where you do not have a sample of known outcomes.

A quick note on samples: We have a rather large body of scientific knowledge to draw upon, much of it is based upon observation of nature...which is what we need for our samples. So...you see, we have plenty of sample data

of course but none of that data consists of life outside of our planet. It is not known and you can't build a model to infer aliens from the data we do have.
edit on 4-2-2014 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 07:05 AM

I'd like to point out that the OP subject line is a reversal of BOP... "Prove that an unknown doesn't exist".

That said, the Drak Equation relies only on quantifiable knowns and yields just two possible results: "Maybe/maybe not" and "Definitely".
edit on 4-2-2014 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 08:37 AM

thanks for the link. That was informative.

posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 08:46 AM

ZetaRediculian

thanks for the link. That was informative.

Anytime.

I should put it in my sig for easy reference.

posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 09:31 AM

ZetaRediculian

All you have to do is give an example. In order to discern the "unknown" you need a sample of outcomes where your "unknown" has occurred. That is how Bayesian Inference works and you CAN use Bayesian on "simple models". The math does not change as the complexity of the model goes up.

No, not true. You still don't quite understand...

I' not using "unknowns" as you think of them. 'm using sound scientific data that indicates the probabilities of various things (several likelihood functions). These combined with other mathematical "objects" lead to the inference I'm speaking of

While Bayesian inference will work with the simple, it is NOT any of the models you have so quaintly presented. And no the math does not change as the complexity increases.

However...

you do not seem to have any sort of grasp on Bayesian statistics/probability. You continuously attempt to make it into something your high school mathematics can explain, and that ain't happening...is it?

I do not need these "unknowns" you speak of, I can do quite well with the KNOWN data from Terrestrial science...you know stuff like 22% of stars are "Sol like", and 22% of those have Earth like planets. I can also use the "opposite" probability...you know, the probability that something "ISN'T"...that is just as good as the probability that something "IS".

By the way...the probability of "bumping nto" ET on the streets of your fav city? around 7.1428e-10 (0.0000000007128).

posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 09:40 AM

draknoir2

I'd like to point out that the OP subject line is a reversal of BOP... "Prove that an unknown doesn't exist".

That said, the Drak Equation relies only on quantifiable knowns and yields just two possible results: "Maybe/maybe not" and "Definitely".
edit on 4-2-2014 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)

I love this:

The Drak Equation:

Pv = (Nct / Nt) x 100

Where:
Pv is the probability of ET visitation in %
Nt is the number of types of intelligent species [2 - terrestrial and ET]
Nct is the number of CONFIRMED types of intelligent species on Earth [1- terrestrial or 2 - terrestrial and ET]

According to this there is a probability of 0.5 that ET is visiting...that's WAY better than my methods give...

Perhaps we should go with this instead...my way makes it almost impossible to actually "meet" ET...your way makes it an almost sure thing...Heck...I'm headin into town to find me an ET...with those "odds" should be easy!

Please, isn't it time to take all this a bit more seriously? Does not the most significant thing that can happen to a species/society deserve serious attention? That's as opposed to an insipid knee-jerk reaction? One would think a little bit of actual thought is called for.

posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 09:49 AM

100% THIS

You are excellent making an incredibly important point.

yes, I am a super genius.

new topics

top topics

10