View Poll Results: Do you believe in psychics, extraterrestrial life, time travel, other universes?

Voters
247. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, I believe in all of them

    24 9.72%
  • No, I don't believe in any of them

    48 19.43%
  • I believe in some of them, but not all of them

    175 70.85%
Page 22 of 22 FirstFirst ...
12
20
21
22
  1. #421
    Maybe life on earth is monkeys writing Shakespeare.

  2. #422
    Quote Originally Posted by Dilbon View Post
    Maybe life on earth is monkeys writing Shakespeare.
    Indeed. We can't at this time rule out the possibility that some step in Origin of Life here was akin to that at least in kind: an exponentially unlikely step.
    "There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
    "Sooner or later everyone sits down to a banquet of consequences." -- Robert Louis Stevenson
    If you didn't get your COVID shot it's probably too late now, you fool.

  3. #423
    Scarab Lord Darththeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away
    Posts
    4,813
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    Indeed. We can't at this time rule out the possibility that some step in Origin of Life here was akin to that at least in kind: an exponentially unlikely step.
    We can't rule it out. However, what we know suggests that it is a highly unlikely possibility that such a step exists in the creation of life.

    You argument is built off the flawed stance of unless you have perfect knowledge on the subject, you cannot be certain of anything. No one holds this as a valid form of argument because you discount what we know because we may not know something else.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by kranur View Post
    WTF are you talking about? It's called a theory based on what exists.

    A religious cult is what you're doing "It has not been proven therefore it does not exist."
    Osmeric holds on to the fact X could be possible that would disprove what we know therefore you cannot make a claim on it one way or another.

    He ignores all the evidence we have in favor of a thought experiment.
    Peace is a lie. There is only passion. Through passion I gain strength. Through strength I gain power.
    Through power I gain victory. Through victory my chains are broken. The Force shall set me free.
    –The Sith Code

  4. #424
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    Indeed. We can't at this time rule out the possibility that some step in Origin of Life here was akin to that at least in kind: an exponentially unlikely step.
    We can't, but it's not the default position. One of the premises of science is universality - that the laws of science hold true regardless of where you are in the universe. As such, in order to assume that something couldn't happen anywhere else you'd need a good reason: something that makes a situation unique in ways that can't be replicated elsewhere.

    It's all well and good to postulate that the emergence of life is an "unlikely" event - but that says NOTHING about the actual probability, or about whether or not it occurred only once. Exponentially unlikely events happen all the time, and the universe is very, very big.

    Even if the actual confluence of events leading to the formation of some kind of life is a rare event, the preconditions that would lead to such an event at least are not at all rare; in fact, they're quite common. Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Carbon are among the most common elements in the universe. Water - if not required then at least highly useful for the emergence of life, being a polar solvent - seems to form fairly readily. Energy input from stars is ubiquitous. Planetary formation around those stars appears to be commonplace.

    It doesn't seem unreasonable that given the relative ubiquity of all the elements needed for life to emerge, it would have happened elsewhere. Numerically speaking, the size of the universe allows for plenty of unlikely events to happen all the time. And so far, there hasn't really been ANY evidence that would give Earth special dispensation - some kind of factor that led to the emergence of life on this planet, but that is exceedingly rare on others.

    That doesn't, of course, mean that life DID form somewhere else; neither does it mean it did not. We have no evidence for either, but we also have no evidence that Earth is special somehow; and given that we have all the building blocks, and given that physics and chemistry are likely to work the same anywhere in the universe, it doesn't seem unreasonable to postulate that the emergence of life may not be all that unlikely after all. Bearing in mind, of course, that given the right perspective ANYTHING is supremely unlikely; yet SOMETHING happens all the time.

    We can't put a number on the probability of the emergence of life. Our lack of evidence for extraterrestrial life is meaningless, because of our extremely limited ways of detecting it. To borrow a popular metaphor, taking a spoonful of seawater and concluding that because we did not find fish in there, they're a supremely rare thing in the oceans is pretty silly. We simply can't say one way or another - but we can say that the necessary ingredients, at least, are not very rare. And unless some kind of mechanism is provided as evidence for why given the abundance of ingredients the process that happened once wouldn't happen (at least) twice, I'm not sure it's reasonable at all to conclude that life is as rare as some people think it would be.

  5. #425
    Scarab Lord Darththeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away
    Posts
    4,813
    Quote Originally Posted by Biomega View Post
    We can't, but it's not the default position. One of the premises of science is universality - that the laws of science hold true regardless of where you are in the universe. As such, in order to assume that something couldn't happen anywhere else you'd need a good reason: something that makes a situation unique in ways that can't be replicated elsewhere.

    It's all well and good to postulate that the emergence of life is an "unlikely" event - but that says NOTHING about the actual probability, or about whether or not it occurred only once. Exponentially unlikely events happen all the time, and the universe is very, very big.

    Even if the actual confluence of events leading to the formation of some kind of life is a rare event, the preconditions that would lead to such an event at least are not at all rare; in fact, they're quite common. Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Carbon are among the most common elements in the universe. Water - if not required then at least highly useful for the emergence of life, being a polar solvent - seems to form fairly readily. Energy input from stars is ubiquitous. Planetary formation around those stars appears to be commonplace.

    It doesn't seem unreasonable that given the relative ubiquity of all the elements needed for life to emerge, it would have happened elsewhere. Numerically speaking, the size of the universe allows for plenty of unlikely events to happen all the time. And so far, there hasn't really been ANY evidence that would give Earth special dispensation - some kind of factor that led to the emergence of life on this planet, but that is exceedingly rare on others.

    That doesn't, of course, mean that life DID form somewhere else; neither does it mean it did not. We have no evidence for either, but we also have no evidence that Earth is special somehow; and given that we have all the building blocks, and given that physics and chemistry are likely to work the same anywhere in the universe, it doesn't seem unreasonable to postulate that the emergence of life may not be all that unlikely after all. Bearing in mind, of course, that given the right perspective ANYTHING is supremely unlikely; yet SOMETHING happens all the time.

    We can't put a number on the probability of the emergence of life. Our lack of evidence for extraterrestrial life is meaningless, because of our extremely limited ways of detecting it. To borrow a popular metaphor, taking a spoonful of seawater and concluding that because we did not find fish in there, they're a supremely rare thing in the oceans is pretty silly. We simply can't say one way or another - but we can say that the necessary ingredients, at least, are not very rare. And unless some kind of mechanism is provided as evidence for why given the abundance of ingredients the process that happened once wouldn't happen (at least) twice, I'm not sure it's reasonable at all to conclude that life is as rare as some people think it would be.
    *grabs popcorn and waits*

    He is going to tell you that he isn't arguing that life is unlikely. And that you misunderstood what he is saying.

    He constantly is saying he is just arguing you can't claim life is likely or common because we don't know for sure.
    Peace is a lie. There is only passion. Through passion I gain strength. Through strength I gain power.
    Through power I gain victory. Through victory my chains are broken. The Force shall set me free.
    –The Sith Code

  6. #426
    My two cents:

    Psychics - If we're talking about full blown Professor X or Akira style psychic abilities, then no. I don't believe that mind reading, telekinesis and mind control are a thing. Fortune telling and other stage style psychic stuff? Again, not really. I don't believe that people can look into a mystic ball to see the future or speak with the dearly departed.

    What I do think may exist though, is people that are just naturally perceptive in a way that most people aren't. That they take in information in a unique way, that they may not even consciously realize. Something so rare, that we just don't have a grasp on it. This lets them know or understand things that seem almost impossible to the rest of us It's not magic or mystical, just a way that some people have rather unique abilities no different really than those that can see more colours or have near photographic memories.

    Extraterrestrial Life - Do I believe in little green men from Mars that come here to shove probes up our asses? No, no I do not. Do I believe that we are utterly alone in the wide, wide universe? No. Whether there is life out there that we would immediately recognize as such or not is beyond me, but I believe that the universe is simply too big for the circumstances that allowed for life to happen on Earth to not have happened elsewhere as well.

    I highly doubt we'll ever have a moment of alien life invading our planet and wiping us out. Rather, given our history, I'd say it's far more likely that one day we'd be doing that to other worlds.

    Time Travel - Assuming we're talking about movie type Back to The Future shit here, then I just don't see how. Ignoring how the smallest of changes could be catastrophic to the future of those going back in time, I think the simple fact that we aren't regularly encountering time travellers from the future shows us that it's either not possible, or that our race doesn't survive long enough to ever discover it.

    Other Universes - This one I have no idea, and frankly, I don't think my brain is really equipped to consider it. My understanding of time and space is, I think, too... linear, I guess, to really consider the possibility or implications.

    What I do think is that if such a thing does exist, we would be hard pressed to be proud when comparing ourselves to what an alternate version of us has done and achieved. Because I don't know what's the scarrier thought: that some other Earth has done a considerably better job than we have and we learn truly how terrible we are, or that there could actually be a group out there worse than us, and what kind of society/world that would look like.

  7. #427
    Quote Originally Posted by Dilbon View Post
    Maybe life on earth is monkeys writing Shakespeare.
    I wonder if that won't be a potential future.
    Humans started cooperative hunting 1.8-1.6 million years ago. And while there are artifacts that show inventive behavior, true creativity didn't come about until the imagination evolved 50k-60k years ago. (Yea there was a blip 70k yrs ago when humanity went nearly extinct...)
    Is there anyone that really believes that we're it? That we've reached the apex of human intellectual achievement? I recall a paleo-anthropologist writing that human thinking processes haven't changed since the stone age. He cited how primitive hunters used the same logic thinking to hunt prey that modern day detectives use to track down criminals.
    I hope we'll do better...eventually. But the cynic in me says; "Nope!"

  8. #428
    Herald of the Titans Violent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    2,998
    Psychics - Nope.

    ET Life - Yes.

    Time Travel - You can only move "forward" through time, like with speed and gravity. Not backward. - So, Halfway.

    Universe(S) - No.
    <~$~("The truth, is limitless in its range. If you drop a 'T' and look at it in reverse, it could hurt.")~$~> L.F.

    <~$~("The most hopelessly stupid man is he who is not aware he is wise.")~$~> I.A.

  9. #429
    Quote Originally Posted by Darththeo View Post
    However, what we know suggests that it is a highly unlikely possibility that such a step exists in the creation of life.
    We know nothing of the kind.

    If p is sufficiently large (compared to 1/N) then we can say with high probability that there is life elsewhere.

    But how can we conclude that p is that large? There is no way to put a probability distribution on possible sets of laws of physics, which are ultimately where p comes from.

    So, no, you are just projecting your preferences and/or prejudices and dressing them up with a spurious assertion that life must be highly likely.

    You argument is built off the flawed stance of unless you have perfect knowledge on the subject, you cannot be certain of anything. No one holds this as a valid form of argument because you discount what we know because we may not know something else.
    Nope. The argument I am making works even if we shade things with gradations in certainty. Our knowledge of the OoL process is so profoundly incomplete that we really can't say much of anything about how likely life is.

    Osmeric holds on to the fact X could be possible that would disprove what we know therefore you cannot make a claim on it one way or another.

    He ignores all the evidence we have in favor of a thought experiment.
    Scenarios like the ones I present are demonstrations that your strong universal claims are logically flawed. You needed to have ruled out such possibilities in order to have validly reached your conclusion.

    All this is sourced back to you making grandiose claims without actually showing your work. You have consistently failed to explain in any logically valid way why we shouldn't just consider your statement airy bullshit.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Darththeo View Post
    *grabs popcorn and waits*

    He is going to tell you that he isn't arguing that life is unlikely. And that you misunderstood what he is saying.

    He constantly is saying he is just arguing you can't claim life is likely or common because we don't know for sure.
    Not only do we not know for sure, but we really don't know even a little bit. Our knowledge of how likely OoL is is profoundly incomplete. There is no useful lower bound we can determine on the chance life starts on a planet.
    "There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
    "Sooner or later everyone sits down to a banquet of consequences." -- Robert Louis Stevenson
    If you didn't get your COVID shot it's probably too late now, you fool.

  10. #430
    Scarab Lord Darththeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away
    Posts
    4,813
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    -snip-
    Once again, you cannot use "we don't know everything" as a reason to discount everything we know.

    You are arguing because are knowledge is limited (ie not perfect, aka imperfect) we cannot make a judgment on the certainty of something occurring.

    Everything we know, everything we observe, etc ... points to life being likely. As we study, we find out that prior assumptions we made are either wrong, more common than we thought, or we misguided by bias of looking for Earth-like life. You are proposing because we cannot know for certain, we cannot make a judgment ... that's garbage.

    No assumption we have made on what will be needed for life has ever become more restrictive. So you are literally just that annoying kid in a glass going "You can't know for sure therefore you are wrong." You are blind to your own arrogance on this topic because you think a mere statement of a mathematical possibility discounts all data we have.

    The evidence that p is likely high is our evidence that you can observe. What evidence do you have that supports that it could be low besides it is mathematically possible?
    Peace is a lie. There is only passion. Through passion I gain strength. Through strength I gain power.
    Through power I gain victory. Through victory my chains are broken. The Force shall set me free.
    –The Sith Code

  11. #431
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamas102 View Post
    Yeah, it didn’t happen the way you remember it. You simply created a false memory. This is a phenomenon that people know can happen. Unlike having psychic visions years into the future.



    I’ve certainly had deja vu moments like that. But like I said before, it’s just an interesting anomaly where a sensory input leads the brain to associate it with the feeling of a memory that never really happened.

    As for those remote viewing experiments in the 70s and 80s, they were an absolute farce. Conducted under the loosest control conditions and declassified because they were completely useless. There have never been any verifiable examples of psychic ability that could stand up to the most rudimentary scientific scrutiny. Never.
    Nothing was created. It happened. There have been many instances recorded that could not be explained any other way. If it didn’t happen to you, there is no way for it to be proven or disproven by anyone else. The remote viewing projects did produce some amazing results but the accuracy was not 100% and therefore was deemed to be not reliable for making major policies based on it.

    A name for you. Edgar Cayce. His story is truly amazing and to this day unexplained.

    All I am saying is that I know for a fact that seeing into the future is possible. Whether other people can amplify it and see things not connected to them personally is another story. I agree that practically all those who have tried to gain fame and fortune from it have been frauds but I also believe that some of them did have experiences in a limited fashion like me but tried to capitalize by falsely expanding it and claiming to be able to do it at any time on demand. It doesn’t work that way. You can’t just decide to do it. It happens completely at random and out of nowhere. The fact that it can’t be done on demand completely negates the possibility of it being tested in any meaningful way. Therefore, scientific scrutiny means nothing and is essentially useless. Like other things, you can’t prove or disprove supernatural events by natural means. It’s completely futile to even try. Science does not have all the answers and never will.
    Last edited by Dch48; Today at 02:59 AM.
    Desktop ------------------------------- Laptop- Acer Nitro 5
    AMD Ryzen 5 5600X CPU ---------------AMD Ryzen 5 2500U with Vega 8 graphics
    AMD RX470 GPU ------------------------AMD Radeon RX 560X discrete graphics
    16 GB DDR4-3200 RAM ----------------16 GB DDR4-2400 RAM
    1 TB Samsung 860 QVO SSD ----------1 TB Crucial MX500 SSD

  12. #432
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    Not only do we not know for sure, but we really don't know even a little bit. Our knowledge of how likely OoL is is profoundly incomplete. There is no useful lower bound we can determine on the chance life starts on a planet.
    We don't have an upper bound either. We have no idea how likely OR unlikely the emergence of life is.

    We don't know if there's some "factor X" that's required to start the process; this could make Earth a special case, but nothing of the sort has been discovered. All we're left with is the elementary factors of chance that govern how the pieces come together and interact. We have no idea how that happened, either, we only know what was definitely in the mix to start with: liquid water, carbon chemistry, and a source of energy for the system (usually light from a star). None of those is particularly rare in the universe: most water on earth is believed to have come from elsewhere in the solar system, carbon/hydrogen/oxygen (the basic requirements of carbon chemistry) are abundant in the universe, and many if not most stars have planets.

    So given that we don't know how likely or unlikely the specific conditions were that lead to the beginning of life, but we DO know what ingredients were definitely required and that those are not rare.

    So what is more reasonable: to assume that a process reliant on very common ingredients is extremely unlikely? Or that a processes relying on very common ingredients is not extremely unlikely? Again, we don't know the exact likelihoods for either - but given what we DO know, which seems more reasonable here?

  13. #433
    @Dch48

    I already told my story here about visions of the future. That makes 2 of us...3 if u count my friend who also had them.
    Is absolutely not controlled but...it happens sometimes in our lifespan.
    All i want to say is...if stuff like this is possible, who is to say no crazier shit is out there? we never know

  14. #434
    Quote Originally Posted by Chadow View Post
    @Dch48

    I already told my story here about visions of the future. That makes 2 of us...3 if u count my friend who also had them.
    Is absolutely not controlled but...it happens sometimes in our lifespan.
    All i want to say is...if stuff like this is possible, who is to say no crazier shit is out there? we never know
    Exactly right. We don’t know and scientific investigations are useless in this area.
    Desktop ------------------------------- Laptop- Acer Nitro 5
    AMD Ryzen 5 5600X CPU ---------------AMD Ryzen 5 2500U with Vega 8 graphics
    AMD RX470 GPU ------------------------AMD Radeon RX 560X discrete graphics
    16 GB DDR4-3200 RAM ----------------16 GB DDR4-2400 RAM
    1 TB Samsung 860 QVO SSD ----------1 TB Crucial MX500 SSD

  15. #435
    Quote Originally Posted by Dch48 View Post
    Nothing was created. It happened. There have been many instances recorded that could not be explained any other way. If it didn’t happen to you, there is no way for it to be proven or disproven by anyone else. The remote viewing projects did produce some amazing results but the accuracy was not 100% and therefore was deemed to be not reliable for making major policies based on it.

    A name for you. Edgar Cayce. His story is truly amazing and to this day unexplained.

    All I am saying is that I know for a fact that seeing into the future is possible. Whether other people can amplify it and see things not connected to them personally is another story. I agree that practically all those who have tried to gain fame and fortune from it have been frauds but I also believe that some of them did have experiences in a limited fashion like me but tried to capitalize by falsely expanding it and claiming to be able to do it at any time on demand. It doesn’t work that way. You can’t just decide to do it. It happens completely at random and out of nowhere. The fact that it can’t be done on demand completely negates the possibility of it being tested in any meaningful way. Therefore, scientific scrutiny means nothing and is essentially useless. Like other things, you can’t prove or disprove supernatural events by natural means. It’s completely futile to even try. Science does not have all the answers and never will.
    This is flawed thinking in every conceivable way.

    "could not be explained any other way": this is the argument from ignorance fallacy; just because other explanations have not been provided doesn't mean your proposed explanation is automatically true. This is not how proof and evidence work AT ALL - evidence is proof positive, you don't simply get to a conclusion through the exclusion of other propositions, because the number of proposed (but unproven) propositions is a set of infinite size.

    "I know for a fact that seeing into the future is possible": you don't KNOW this, you (at best) BELIEVE this. If you had knowledge, you could provide an epistemological basis, and provide evidence. You can't - or you would have, and pocketed your Nobel prize in the process, for proving clairvoyance is real. All you have is an assertion, and conviction; that is a far cry from knowledge.

    "you can’t prove or disprove supernatural events by natural means": the burden on proof is on the one making the claim, since (as above) the set of potential things to be disproven is arbitrarily large. If something CANNOT be proven, it cannot be investigated and it cannot be part of any rational argument (which requires falsifiability). The counterargument is simple: disprove please that what you claim wasn't caused by an omnipotent, undetectable elf named Zachary. Oh, you can't? Well checkmate then, guess Zach's done it again. Since such claims can be repeated ad infinitum and are, epistemologically speaking, on the exact same argumentative footing as yours (i.e. none at all), this is not a valid process for arriving at truth claims.

    "Science does not have all the answers and never will": impossibility has to be demonstrated, just like possibility has to be. We don't know if science can explain EVERYTHING, but so far, we have no discovered a better method for investigating truth claims about reality, and we have discovered nothing that would point towards an impossibility for science to, in principle, explain anything about reality. There may be limitations to human understanding, certainly (if nothing else, then related to the limitations of our physical brains), but there is nothing so far that even hints at conceptual limitations to scientific methodology. If you have proof of such limitations, present it, pass Go, and collect your Nobel prize.

  16. #436
    The Unstoppable Force Orange Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    001100010010011110100001101101110011
    Posts
    20,654
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    We know nothing of the kind.

    If p is sufficiently large (compared to 1/N) then we can say with high probability that there is life elsewhere.

    But how can we conclude that p is that large? There is no way to put a probability distribution on possible sets of laws of physics, which are ultimately where p comes from.

    So, no, you are just projecting your preferences and/or prejudices and dressing them up with a spurious assertion that life must be highly likely.
    So I think this is where the disconnect is coming from.


    When we say highly likely we don't mean every planet should have life. What we mean is that there are SOOOOOO MANY stars and planets that life almost had to have formed on at least one other planet.
    I have a fan. Seems he was permabanned.
    Yo, don't mind my "street talk"

  17. #437
    Quote Originally Posted by jellmoo View Post
    My two cents:

    Psychics - If we're talking about full blown Professor X or Akira style psychic abilities, then no. I don't believe that mind reading, telekinesis and mind control are a thing. Fortune telling and other stage style psychic stuff? Again, not really. I don't believe that people can look into a mystic ball to see the future or speak with the dearly departed.

    What I do think may exist though, is people that are just naturally perceptive in a way that most people aren't. That they take in information in a unique way, that they may not even consciously realize. Something so rare, that we just don't have a grasp on it. This lets them know or understand things that seem almost impossible to the rest of us It's not magic or mystical, just a way that some people have rather unique abilities no different really than those that can see more colours or have near photographic memories.

    Extraterrestrial Life - Do I believe in little green men from Mars that come here to shove probes up our asses? No, no I do not. Do I believe that we are utterly alone in the wide, wide universe? No. Whether there is life out there that we would immediately recognize as such or not is beyond me, but I believe that the universe is simply too big for the circumstances that allowed for life to happen on Earth to not have happened elsewhere as well.

    I highly doubt we'll ever have a moment of alien life invading our planet and wiping us out. Rather, given our history, I'd say it's far more likely that one day we'd be doing that to other worlds.

    Time Travel - Assuming we're talking about movie type Back to The Future shit here, then I just don't see how. Ignoring how the smallest of changes could be catastrophic to the future of those going back in time, I think the simple fact that we aren't regularly encountering time travellers from the future shows us that it's either not possible, or that our race doesn't survive long enough to ever discover it.

    Other Universes - This one I have no idea, and frankly, I don't think my brain is really equipped to consider it. My understanding of time and space is, I think, too... linear, I guess, to really consider the possibility or implications.

    What I do think is that if such a thing does exist, we would be hard pressed to be proud when comparing ourselves to what an alternate version of us has done and achieved. Because I don't know what's the scarrier thought: that some other Earth has done a considerably better job than we have and we learn truly how terrible we are, or that there could actually be a group out there worse than us, and what kind of society/world that would look like.
    This guy gets it!

    I would say science based mind reading and mind control could be a thing in the future but not at this point atleast, we dont understand how brain even works yet (we can only manipulate it to a lesser degree, mostly with drugs). Brainwashing however is a thing and could be counted as mind control, but even that doesnt work on every person so technically not mind control.

    Other universes is such a broad idea too, how would they exist? are we going by the idea that there are alternate dimensions or by saying universes are like galaxies but much much much bigger.
    The latter could be true but we would never be able to observe it since light doesnt travel anywhere near fast enough to show us that far.
    The former... highly unlikely, by our current understanding, or we simply lack the brains and capabilities to ever be able to observe them.


    We shouldnt be asking if theres alien life... we should be asking: are we ever able to detect it?
    Spacefaring aliens is not the only type that could exist, dinosaur-equivalents would be counted as alien life if they evolved in another planet... yet we would never be able to detect them unless they invent a radio or something more powerful, which would emit detectable signals.
    Last edited by Otaka; Today at 03:50 AM.

  18. #438
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,623
    Quote Originally Posted by Darththeo View Post
    Just because government would kill to protect secrets doesn't mean they will kill everyone to protect secrets. That's why you are saying something I am NOT arguing for. You are asserting that if X is true, it must be true in all circumstances, I am not arguing for that.

    The best conspiracy theories are ones with just enough truth to be reasonable, regardless of how ridiculous the theory is.

    First off, I don't "believe" in Area 51, it is a real place that exists. Do I believe Area 51 has Aliens? No. Do I believe the government is using Area 51 as a cover to hide the fact they have aliens somewhere? Also no. Do I believe in aliens building pyramids? No, because more pyramids we know why and even how they were built. I am treating this conversation as a thought experiment, nothing more.
    Then why? If whistleblowers do what they do and don't get killed, why would those with supernatural powers fear for their life so damn much that not a single one "real deal" supernatural people has come forward to present themselves?
    I did a Necromancer thing. Check it out! All feedback welcome!
    I also did a Bard thing! Questions, comments and ideas, all welcome!

  19. #439
    Quote Originally Posted by Otaka View Post
    Spacefaring aliens is not the only type that could exist, dinosaur-equivalents would be counted as alien life if they evolved in another planet... yet we would never be able to detect them unless they invent a radio or something more powerful, which would emit detectable signals.
    There's considerable debate about this. To think that life has emerged elsewhere is not a particularly far-fetched proposition (for various reason), but that doesn't say much about WHAT KIND of life. Perhaps most life in the universe is exceedingly primitive, and the real bottleneck is the emergence of life in an environment and under circumstances that would allow for diversification - or perhaps the very precondition of having a mechanism that allows for heredity plus mutation is rare. And as you say, any form of life that doesn't actively MAKE itself known would be quite hard to detect, particularly at interstellar distances. However, it wouldn't be impossible. You wouldn't necessarily need something like radio signals to detect life on other planets - it's conceivable that we could detect passive byproducts of life as well, such as organic compounds in atmospheres. Current technology isn't quite there yet, but it's not inconceivable that we might be able to detect atmospheric composition of exoplanetary objects at some point in the future, and while that probably wouldn't give CONCLUSIVE evidence for life (barring some extreme cases) it could give a good indication for likely candidates.

    All of that is future talk for now, though. We haven't even really explored our solar system to any degree beyond superficial scrapings here and there, if even. Let alone other parts of the galaxy, not to mention the universe. But plausible models and predictions for future methodologies do exist, and fields like exoplanet research are exploding at the moment (stay tuned for the launch of the new James Webb Space Telescope at the end of the year!).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •