Do you believe in psychics, extraterrestrial life, time travel, other universes?

[Shadowferal]

Personal opinion didn't come into any of my response. Interpretations of QM are inherently metaphysical and as such are outside the scope of science. .

Anyone making any claims of such knowledge is doing just that; making claims. And citing their own opinion to justify it.

- - - Updated - - -

If you were more educated about such things, you wouldn't claim that.

Ah...the smell of condescension. I've never heard of any scientist worth his PhD to claim to know what is impossible. Indeed such a word was never part of the vocabulary, as it indicates a very closed mind. (Thank the gods or whoever for paradigm shifts.)

To know what will ever be possible and impossible..why you'd have to be...well, psychic.

- - - Updated - - -

*hairy eyeball*
That word "you" is a lexical ambiguity.

[MoFalcon]

Psychics are straight up bullshit. No such thing as Ghosts or Souls or any of that nonsense.

Almost 100% chance there is life elsewhere in the universe.

Time travel seems unlikely, but cant be ruled out. Im indifferent on this one.

Other universes are Mathematically possible and math has never failed me before. But does something exist if you haven't discovered it?

[Cinnamilk]

Anyone making any claims of such knowledge is doing just that; making claims. And citing their own opinion to justify it.

If we're just going to say that any presentation of information is just some opinionated grandstanding, then as a physicist my opinion of your approach to discussing these things is that it's asinine and I might as well reply to you with memes if that's how you're going to respond.

Unprovable things are outside of the scope of science, even if they have to deal with the interpretation of the models we use to measure nature. It stops being science or formal logic and becomes philosophy. That's not an opinion, it follows from the definition of what science is.

It's just absolutely inane that you'd Lebowski a response to someone making an outlandish claim, that something that cannot be proven one way or the other has irrefutable evidence.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not like the MW approach to a problem doesn't have it's uses; it can be a very handy tool for thinking about calculus of variations or Feynman path integrals.

Saying that those universes are absolutely real and exist is a separate claim than using the formulism to help with computing predictions and a clear step into the metaphysical.

[Surfd]

But does something exist if you haven't discovered it?

Umm, yes. Like, if it exists, it exists, period. Discovery is not a qualification for existence.

[Bodakane]

Ironic that Nietzsche would disagree with you.

Why would that be ironic?

[Amarys]

Ah...the smell of condescension. I've never heard of any scientist worth his PhD to claim to know what is impossible. Indeed such a word was never part of the vocabulary, as it indicates a very closed mind. (Thank the gods or whoever for paradigm shifts.)

To know what will ever be possible and impossible..why you'd have to be...well, psychic.

- - - Updated - - -

*hairy eyeball*
That word "you" is a lexical ambiguity.

Not at all, but it just slightly bothers me when people make wild claims based on irrelevant data. I never said it's impossible that alien life exists but since we only have 1 source (and if it is the only one, we must be it, since otherwise we wouldn't be able to observe ourselves and claim that we are alive), the statistical probability of other life existing is unknown and the probability of it is also unknown.

The number of stars, and planets is completely irrelevant because the chance of life emerging is not known. It could be a very small number meaning that the Drake equation could as easily give you a number between 0 and 1 than anything bigger. The correct answer to this question currently is we don't know and that's it.

Intelligent life on the other hand is very unlikely. Humans have been technological for only maybe 200 years if even that and were already sending signals and junk into space. That is nothing compared to astronomical scales. If there were other civilizations in our galaxy, we would see their footprints everywhere. Sure, you can imagine reasons why we can't, like they choose not to pollute or alter things but the same logic was applied to why we can't see fairies not so long ago.

[Trumpcat]

Psychics, I know one working for authorities. Has also given me extremely accurate predictions for business and health related stuff, so it's not a matter of belief.

For the rest we don't know, so believing anything would be stupid.

[Athorha]

Psychics, no. Extraterrestrials, almost certainly yes, given the vastness of the universe. Time travel, maybe. But the ease of creating paradoxes and the Butterfly effect in general would make it impractical, at least in terms of visiting the past. Parallel universes Pannenkoek already proved to be real.

As I see it, psychic prowess can go as far as predicting and confining conversation towards one's own end undetected by a less aware conversation partner.

It would be like you and I talking about Apple picking but I just want to know if you have a hot sister, so I ask if you have a sister that goes apple picking with you. A sociopath with minute psychic speech anticipation would probably be more devious in how they figure out if you have a hot sister.

Psychic as reading another and inherently seeing something.. I think thats a very extreme outlook fantasized in stories that reach beyond what's really capable. The furthest most humans get with physical psychic reading is falling asleep on your arm at the cottage, walking outside and wondering why when everybody looks at you they scratch their elbow, until it clicks and you feel the lack of feeling in your extremity.

[NihilSustinet]

Psychics, I know one working for authorities. Has also given me extremely accurate predictions for business and health related stuff, so it's not a matter of belief.

For the rest we don't know, so believing anything would be stupid.

Lol. imagine being fooled by some of the oldest tricks in the book.

[Shadowferal]

Why would that be ironic?

I'll get back to this... I had a long...ish response quoting Nietzsche and lost it...goddamn touchscreens...hate them..hate them..hate them...

[Eldar45]

psychics, no
time travel, no
other universes, no

Extraterrestrial Life: maybe, but the chances are pretty slim and they have almost certainly never been to this planet.

[Forogil]

If you were more educated about such things, you wouldn't claim that. You know that there are more H2O molecules in glass of water than there are stars in the observable universe

Both numbers are about the same magnitude, but there's a large uncertainty in the number of stars in the observable universe (for a glass of water the variation is a factor of two or so - due to glasses of different size): lots of stars even in the milky way are too dim. There are also smaller effects making the very notion of counting the stars in the observable universe unclear (and of course the very definition of "star" is unclear - how much fusion is needed for something to be a star and not a brown dwarf?)

yet you can claim with absolute certainty that one of those molecules is not sentient and doesn't have a little house with a finely mowed lawn somewhere in there. You can absolutely claim what is possible or likely and what isn't with even bigger numbers.

Having such fine details as a lawn clashes with what science has taught us about molecules.

Just because something makes nice science fiction like 三体 by Liu Cixin; doesn't make it possible.

[Amarys]

BHaving such fine details as a lawn clashes with what science has taught us about molecules.

Just because something makes nice science fiction like 三体 by Liu Cixin; doesn't make it possible.

That was exactly my point. So many pro alien life arguments use big numbers as proof while in reality the number alone doesn't mean anything without probability. So if the probability is zero and the number is infinite, the chance of something happening is still zero. We know that the chance of life emerging is not zero though since we have 1 example of it. We also know the universe is not infinite so the answer could be anything until we find a second sample of independently developed life or scour a good chunk of the universe and find none.

[Ielenia]

To answer the OP's title question in order:

• I believe psychics do not exist.
Paranormal abilities such a telekinesis, mind reading, speaking with ghosts, etc, are concepts that go against the established laws of physics, in concept, and have never been demonstrated to actually exist. Every time a psychic is challenged to put their so-called paranormal abilities to the test in a controlled environment by people who want to find out if that is true or not, they refuse to do so, which further lends credence to the idea it's just charlatanism in my mind.

• I do not disbelieve extraterrestrial life exists.
The universe is big. Like... a grain of sand compared to the size of the solar system big, if not even more so. What may or may not be hyperbole aside, the point is that, even if the chance of life happening depends on a very specific set of circumstances (such as exact distance from the sun, specific planetary conditions, etc.), the universe is big enough that I believe that there is a good chance of it happening again. I mean, think about it: if you throw one million dice enough times, eventually you'll get the exact same result on the same exact dice you got on your first roll.

• I believe time travel is not possible.
Time travel, as depicted in sci-fi and comics, I believe is not possible. Traveling backward or forward in time-- again, as depicted in sci-fi and comics-- imply so many disastrous consequences that are usually either glossed over or ignored. You went to the past and you accidentally got your mother to get a crush on you instead of your father's? Did you go far enough in time that a tiny, inconsequential action from you (at least, inconsequential to you) eventually caused your parents or grandparents to never even meet in the future through the butterfly effect? Not to mention that traveling through time in either direction, but specifically forward, basically destroys the concept of free will. Because if a future exists to be traveled towards, implies that our future decisions are set in stone to bring that future forward.

• I do not believe alternate universes exist.
This is kinda tied to time travel. I do not believe alternate universes exist. It's an unfalsifiable concept that so far exist only in highly debatable scientific hypotheses, not even theories. Their Schrodinger-like situation does not affect me or anyone in their day-to-day lives so it's not a subject that is worth putting much thought into it, in my opinion.

[Forogil]

That was exactly my point. So many pro alien life arguments use big numbers as proof while in reality the number alone doesn't mean anything without probability. So if the probability is zero and the number is infinite, the chance of something happening is still zero. We know that the chance of life emerging is not zero though since we have 1 example of it. We also know the universe is not infinite so the answer could be anything until we find a second sample of independently developed life or scour a good chunk of the universe and find none.

Well, that is true for the observable universe - but we are trying to nail it down further. We have one observation (earth) and we are still unsure about more primitive life on Mars and Venus (Venus seem pretty unlikely, though) - and outside the solar system we know even less.

However, for water molecules in a glass there's simply no similar possibility.

[MoFalcon]

Umm, yes. Like, if it exists, it exists, period. Discovery is not a qualification for existence.

I call bullshit. Cant prove a negative. something isn't real unless there is proof that it is....some kind of proof. tested and re-tested. not just "it is real because i said so"
thats how religion got started. we all know how that went.

[Shadowferal]

I call bullshit. Cant prove a negative. something isn't real unless there is proof that it is....some kind of proof. tested and re-tested. not just "it is real because i said so" thats how religion got started. we all know how that went.

And Native Americans didn't exist until they wete discovered. /sarcasm

[Biomega]

I call bullshit. Cant prove a negative. something isn't real unless there is proof that it is....some kind of proof. tested and re-tested. not just "it is real because i said so"
thats how religion got started. we all know how that went.

I think you mean the right thing, but the way you're saying it is definitely not correct.

Whether or not there's proof of something has ZERO bearing on whether or not it exists. What it does have bearing on is whether or not you should BELIEVE it exists. Before existence is demonstrated, it may still be true; but we have no way of verifying it, and the default therefore is not to believe it exists (if that wasn't the default you'd have to believe in the existence of everything conceivable, which is an infinitely large set).

In other words, without evidence for e.g. extraterrestrial life, that life may well exist; but you are not justified in BELIEVING it exists until you have evidence. You may suspect it exists, hope it exists, etc. but those are all tentative hypotheses subject to evidentiary confirmation.

People sometimes use "X exists" as shorthand for "I know/believe/am convinced X exists" but there's an important distinction there that can matter a lot.

[MoFalcon]

I think you mean the right thing, but the way you're saying it is definitely not correct.

Whether or not there's proof of something has ZERO bearing on whether or not it exists. What it does have bearing on is whether or not you should BELIEVE it exists. Before existence is demonstrated, it may still be true; but we have no way of verifying it, and the default therefore is not to believe it exists (if that wasn't the default you'd have to believe in the existence of everything conceivable, which is an infinitely large set).

In other words, without evidence for e.g. extraterrestrial life, that life may well exist; but you are not justified in BELIEVING it exists until you have evidence. You may suspect it exists, hope it exists, etc. but those are all tentative hypotheses subject to evidentiary confirmation.

People sometimes use "X exists" as shorthand for "I know/believe/am convinced X exists" but there's an important distinction there that can matter a lot.

Some people have a way with words and some people just .........dont have a way. nicely put!

- - - Updated - - -

And Native Americans didn't exist until they wete discovered. /sarcasm

Exactly...they didn't exist in OUR KNOWN WORLD of things that mattered to us. thing that we factored into or daily lives. it didnt matter if they did or not, it "wasnt even a thing".

thanks!

[Shadowferal]

Exactly...they didn't exist in OUR KNOWN WORLD of things that mattered to us. thing that we factored into or daily lives. it didnt matter if they did or not, it "wasnt even a thing". thanks!

Umm...native here.
But the feeling is mutual...so...