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.
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.
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)?
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?
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.
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.
Originally posted by Lexion
One of my favorite hypothesis.
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.
Originally posted by Lexion
Nice post.
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.
So, in short: My theory does not assume that there are similar conditions elsewhere. You have supplemented that assumption yourself.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Originally posted by Orgler
Yes - but we don't know the complete functionality of this universe. Does "luck" play a role?
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!?
Originally posted by Mondogiwa
Easy now tigers,
This is getting a little sassy and all, we must find a mutually understandable analogy is all.
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.
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.
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".
Originally posted by Mondogiwa
The analogy claims one thing as a standard, "the cat exists and must therefore be alive or dead".
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??
Therefore, you must assume that the cat is both alive and dead.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Mondogiwa
Conjecture?? Speculation?? 50/50 Theory?? In essence, is it not all relatively the same thing?
Originally posted by Mondogiwa
We do now know FOR SURE, therefore we rationalize why we guess the ways that we do!
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...