Do you believe in life elsewhere?

[anonymous122511]

There hasn't been any significant improvement of space propulsion in the last 50 years.
We still basically use the same propulsors as in the early 60s. Slightly faster but not significantly.

My underlying point was that there could be NEW technology that emerges as did powered flight a little over a hundred years ago.
There is much recent precedent for new technologies emerging quickly.
Is it likely? I don't have enough evidence to say one way or the other. I don't know.

I do know that the absence of evidence that it is likely is not grounds for the assumption that it is unlikely.

 

[12bass]

Kids in the Hall - Anal Probing Aliens - YouTube

 

[Roscoe East]

this discussion maybe useful as an entertainment, but really serves the same function as discussing whether God exists or not...

Except that what I've been (perhaps unsuccessfully or incoherantly) suggesting is that we can make educated guesses on the probability of life elsewhere. And likewise, we can make educated guesses on the probability of God's existence.

The questions may serve the same function, but the answers you get will assuredly be different.

 

[12bass]

Except that what I've been (perhaps unsuccessfully or incoherantly) suggesting is that we can make educated guesses on the probability of life elsewhere. And likewise, we can make educated guesses on the probability of God's existence.

The questions may serve the same function, but the answers you get will assuredly be different.

No idea how anyone would even begin to make an educated guess on the probability of the existence of supernatural entities.

As far as extraterrestrial life goes, the recent discovery of hundreds of exoplanets, along with continuing advances in organic chemistry, may serve to give a better indication of the potential preponderance of life in the cosmos. At least, it should help reduce the error bars in our predictions somewhat.....

 

[BassyBill]

No idea how anyone would even begin to make an educated guess on the probability of the existence of supernatural entities.

As far as extraterrestrial life goes, the recent discovery of hundreds of exoplanets, along with continuing advances in organic chemistry, may serve to give a better indication of the potential preponderance of life in the cosmos. At least, it should help reduce the error bars in our predictions somewhat.....

Epistemological issues relating to supernatural entities or events are often informed by considerations of parsimony and/or logical issues to do with regression. Some fairly strong inferences can be made that way, I think. I can't really see how those concepts would apply to estimating the probability of extra-terrestrial life, which actually makes the latter more difficult to call than the former, in my opinion. Maybe we should start a lobby discussion for exploring that comparison, though.

 

[12bass]

... Maybe we should start a lobby discussion for exploring that comparison, though.

Perhaps... though I have no access.

One of those questions is amenable to empirical inquiry. The other... well....

Actually, that reminds me of an ongoing discussion I've been having with another grad student. He seems to think that logical implications must somehow obtain in reality (and perhaps you can imagine which one he's aiming for ). In my view that's absurd. Just look at quantum electrodynamics. It defies logic... yet by all accounts it is an accurate representation of reality. I would suggest that reality trumps internalized reasoning every time.... which I why I contend that all hypotheses about the nature of reality, no matter how sound they might appear internally, need to be tested externally to check accordance.

 

[Lonesomedave]

Except that what I've been (perhaps unsuccessfully or incoherantly) suggesting is that we can make educated guesses on the probability of life elsewhere. And likewise, we can make educated guesses on the probability of God's existence.

The questions may serve the same function, but the answers you get will assuredly be different.

how, exactly can you make educated guesses -- other than some form of the old "Well... it's logical" argument.

my hypothesis is that there is life, but I don't believe this, absent some way to actually TEST the hypothesis.

 

[Lonesomedave]

.... I would suggest that reality trumps internalized reasoning every time.... which I why I contend that all hypotheses about the nature of reality, no matter how sound they might appear internally, need to be tested externally to check accordance....

this is what i was saying.... there is no way to LOGICALLY determine either the existence/non-existence of God, and there is no way to LOGICALLY determine the existence/non0existence of ET Life.

both await evidence. as far a God goes, who knows...if there IS a god, maybe he will choose to manifest himself such that there can be no doubt as to his existence or what form of worship (if any) he prefers.... my hypothesis is both rabid muslims and rabid christians are gonna have some 'splainin' to do if that does indeed happen.

 

[Roscoe East]

One of those questions is amenable to empirical inquiry. The other... well....

Both questions are equally amendable to empirical inquiry; the problems usually start when folks don't like the answers to the 2nd question!

 

[Roscoe East]

how, exactly can you make educated guesses -- other than some form of the old "Well... it's logical" argument.

my hypothesis is that there is life, but I don't believe this, absent some way to actually TEST the hypothesis.

Perhaps this is just a semantic issue...but, unless your "hypothesis" is completely devoid of any rationale, then it is an "educated guess".

 

[Gaius46]

Both questions are equally amendable to empirical inquiry; the problems usually start when folks don't like the answers to the 2nd question!

How can you empircally inquiry into the existence of something that is completely undetectable?

 

[12bass]

How can you empircally inquiry into the existence of something that is completely undetectable?

Yep... perhaps impossible by definition.... and an avenue that bassybill wanted us to steer away from....

Extraterrestrials, on the other hand, should be detectable in principle. The problem is that, if they exist at all, they are likely to exist outside our means of dectection for the forseeable future due to a number of confounding factors.

 

[Roscoe East]

How can you empircally inquiry into the existence of something that is completely undetectable?

You start by making a rigorous list of what would objectively constitute "detection"

 

[Lonesomedave]

Perhaps this is just a semantic issue...but, unless your "hypothesis" is completely devoid of any rationale, then it is an "educated guess".

oh, now that is truly semantic... you say tomayto i say tomahto...

if we are using different words to mean the same thing, then we agree... if not, please explain what you mean by "educated guess"

 

[BassyBill]

... and an avenue that bassybill wanted us to steer away from...

Yeah, thread will get closed if we venture too far down that route. Please let's keep it about what we might find in the natural world rather than beyond it. Thanks.

 

[Roscoe East]

if we are using different words to mean the same thing, then we agree... if not, please explain what you mean by "educated guess"

Well, I think we are using different words to mean the same thing....your "hypothesis" is not based on purely gut intuition or unsubstantiated imagination, right? It's based on things that we do know something about, things that we do have objective data about...and then you look at the implications of combining that information: "we know A, and we know B, so what are the chances that A+B=C?" That's a hypothesis, no?

Or, that's an "educated guess."

 

[Lonesomedave]

Well, I think we are using different words to mean the same thing....your "hypothesis" is not based on purely gut intuition or unsubstantiated imagination, right? It's based on things that we do know something about, things that we do have objective data about...and then you look at the implications of combining that information: "we know A, and we know B, so what are the chances that A+B=C?" That's a hypothesis, no?

Or, that's an "educated guess."

not exactly what i meant. as feyman says in the clip below, a hypothesis could be anything--a WAG (wild ass guess).

it is what you do with it that's important.
Invalid Link Removed

my hypothesis is that there is ET life. doesn't mean that's what i believe. doesn't even need any factual basis at all.

we then test the hypothesis, and find whether the evidence backs up the hypothesis or not.

we do not set out to PROVE OUR HYPOTHESIS TRUE. we set out, to find out, WHETHER IT IS TRUE OR NOT.

i am simply saying that i believe no such evidence exists currently. maybe those who have been anally probed (see my earlier post) would disagree. but there does not seem to be any OBJECTIVE evidence, that which can be seen and evaluated by anybody. therefore, my hypothesis must remain, for the time being, just my hypothesis.

 

[12bass]

I'd suggest that Feynman wasn't entirely serious when he talked about scientific guesses. In the context of science, hypotheses are limited to notions which fall within the constraints of physical possibility. Thus, no credible scientist would posit that the extinction of the dinosaurs was caused by overconsumption of time-traveling jellybeans, or that the Moon is made of green cheese.

As for the present case, the analogy suggesting that improvements in transportation since medieval times are somehow comparable to interstellar travel is off by many orders of magnitude. It is true that humans have drastically increased the speed at which we can travel between two points on Earth. However, the distance between any two points on this planet simply does not compare to the sheer expanse of the Universe. Our present estimate is that the Universe extends about 46 billion light years in every direction. Even at the speed of light, there is simply no way to traverse that distance in a lifetime, let alone a thousand lifetimes. Thus, unless our present understanding of the laws of physics is fundamentally wrong, interstellar travel, beyond perhaps the nearest stars, will forever remain nothing more than a fantasy.

 

[sloasdaylight]

I'd suggest that Feynman wasn't entirely serious when he talked about scientific guesses. In the context of science, hypotheses are limited to notions which fall within the constraints of physical possibility. Thus, no credible scientist would posit that the extinction of the dinosaurs was caused by overconsumption of time-traveling jellybeans, or that the Moon is made of green cheese.

As for the present case, the analogy suggesting that improvements in transportation since medieval times are somehow comparable to interstellar travel is off by many orders of magnitude. It is true that humans have drastically increased the speed at which we can travel between two points on Earth. However, the distance between any two points on this planet simply does not compare to the sheer expanse of the Universe. Our present estimate is that the Universe extends about 46 billion light years in every direction. Even at the speed of light, there is simply no way to traverse that distance in a lifetime, let alone a thousand lifetimes. Thus, unless our present understanding of the laws of physics is fundamentally wrong, interstellar travel, beyond perhaps the nearest stars, will forever remain nothing more than a fantasy.

Wait what? The last I heard the age of the universe was around 13.5ish billion years. A universe with a radius of 46 billion light years would make it at least 46billion years old would it not?

 

[12bass]

Wait what? The last I heard the age of the universe was around 13.5ish billion years. A universe with a radius of 46 billion light years would make it at least 46billion years old would it not?

Nope.... the discrepancy is apparently due to the expansion of the Universe. Bit hard to wrap one's head around!