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

Page 24 of 31 FirstFirst ...
14
22
23
24
25
26
... LastLast
  1. #461
    Scarab Lord Darththeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away
    Posts
    4,856
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    It's a totally reasonable argument. You can't compute a probability unless you know the probability distribution.
    Except it isn't. And that latter is not true.

    You do not need to know the exact probability distribution to compute probability.
    For example, I don't know exactly what the odds of getting a winning lotto number off the top of my head, but I know that the probability that someone will win the lottery is high.
    I know the odds of any random order of cards is 1/52!, but I know that any shuffle is have a result. You cannot shuffle the cards and they disappear during it.
    All that matters is that such odds can be calculated, not that they are known.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    Really. Imagine a universe in which life around any particular star is so extremely uncommon because OoL is very difficult, that we are likely alone. How would that universe look any different than what we see now?
    And how would the universe look any different if humans were the only intelligent life that used radiowaves and other electromagnetic signals to communicate?

    It does not. Please stop lying.
    We have found amino acids on freaking comets. Something we assumed required a planet to create.
    There is potential they could even be on Pluto.

    Every rare thing we have thought has shown has been shown to be far more common than we thought. You posit that there could be something rare we do not know. YOU NEED EVIDENCE FOR THAT. Otherwise, it is just a thought experiment.

    There's no reason for us to assume life is common, either (we don't understand OoL well enough to make that assumption). So why are you giving that assumption privilege over the opposite assumption? The correct stance is to assume neither, because both assumptions are consistent with current evidence.
    How many people said life is common? No, they said life is CERTAIN. Not COMMON. There could be just one other planet with life, there could be 100. If there were 100 planets (even just in the Milky Way) life wouldn't be common.

    Also, even if they did, they are not using common as adverse to rare, but rather ordinary as life can be viewed.

    Cool. Then you be able to easily point to the place where your argument is stated in ironclad terms. You don't seem to be able to STATE any ironclad argument, but certainly you should be able to find a reference.
    No argument is ironclad. We can't even prove gravity with an "ironclad" unquestionable argument.
    Even if we were to say find life on Mars, your argument becomes "Still doesn't prove life is certain outside the solar system."
    We could find life on every single rocky body of a sufficient size ... still doesn't get us to life is certain outside of the solar system for you.

    You are arguing something that even if we prove life is elsewhere outside of our solar system, you could still argue. You are making a claim that is unfalsifiable unless life is literally everywhere because you chose to argue common vs rare rather than certain vs uncertain.

    Yes, I am doing that. If you understood basic logic, you would understand that what I'm doing there is devastating to this illogic you are spewing.
    Given you don't know what an ad hominem is, stop commenting on other's understanding of logic. I am tired of your arrogant bs here, you are shit at logic.

    Seriously, you change people arguments ... ie from certain or likely to common. That's strawmanning. Those are synonyms. .
    Last edited by Darththeo; 2021-10-19 at 01:05 AM.
    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

  2. #462
    Quote Originally Posted by Darththeo View Post
    Except it isn't. And that latter is not true.

    You do not need to know the exact probability distribution to compute probability.
    But we need to know something about the probability distribution. What is the distribution of possible physical laws, and what is the distribution of the chance life arises on a planet conditioned on that distribution? We have no idea; we don't even know if the concept can make any sense.

    Your claim that OoL is likely elsewhere is not even wrong.

    And how would the universe look any different if humans were the only intelligent life that used radiowaves and other electromagnetic signals to communicate?
    You did not answer my question.

    Let's consider a similar, perhaps more concrete question. Suppose you claimed that invisible unicorns are common in American cities, and I asked "well, what would America look like if there were no invisible unicorns, and how would that be different from what we see?"

    If there is no difference, then our observations cannot rule the possibility there are no invisible unicorns in American cities.

    So I ask again, what specifically would be different in what we see if life were not out there because OoL is a very rare process (even in the presence of oxygen, carbon, etc. as were on the early Earth)?

    We have found amino acids on freaking comets. Something we assumed required a planet to create.
    There is potential they could even be on Pluto.
    That's nice. That just shows that if life is rare, creation of amino acids probably isn't the reason.

    To show life isn't rare, you have to do more than show that some steps on the way to life are common. You need to show that EVERY step on the way to life is sufficiently common. And you cannot possibly do that, because we have no good understanding of what those steps are. We have not ruled out the possibility that some step in OoL may be extremely difficult.

    You posit that there could be something rare we do not know. YOU NEED EVIDENCE FOR THAT.
    No, YOU need evidence AGAINST it. That's because YOU are the one making the strong claim that life is common (or, that it exists out there at all).

    If I were making a similar strong claim that life is uncommon, then I would indeed need to provide that evidence. But I am making no such claim.


    How many people said life is common? No, they said life is CERTAIN. Not COMMON. There could be just one other planet with life, there could be 100. If there were 100 planets (even just in the Milky Way) life wouldn't be common.
    So, you admit 1 planet with life out there is a reasonable thing to propose, but you think 0 is not? Why the sharp cutoff


    Given you don't know what an ad hominem is, stop commenting on other's people understanding of logic. I am tired of your arrogant bs here, you are shit at logic.
    I am sick and tired of your inability to construct any argument that isn't ridiculous nonsense. You are lacking some basic mental capacity to reason correctly, it appears.

    This is not an ad hominem argument, it is a frankly appalled reaction to what you have been posting. You appear to lack even the ability to understand how bogus your attempts at logic are.
    "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
    Get your COVID booster. It works so much better than horse paste.

  3. #463
    Quote Originally Posted by Darththeo View Post
    That wasn't really a circular argument.

    Look at people who don't believe we have been to space, they do exactly what Shadowferal is talking about.
    Now, let's pretend we are in a world where people only secretly go to space, but video got leaked. You'll have people doing that exact same thing, but now you get support from the person involved.

    Yes, there will be people who don't accept the statement and feel things are false, but they would have no means of proving what they believe to be true for most people.

    However, Shadowferal is not really answering the question either. He is dodging it.
    He is most certainly deflecting and using circular logic. I can't comprehend psychics so I can't ever notice that they exist .... because I can't comprehend them is 100% circular logic and a fallacious argument.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by LilSaihah View Post
    To be fair, they can see the future. They'd know why to hide themselves.
    Not all psychic power being discussed is seeing into the future. One person was saying they had prophetic dreams that they couldn't control, so its not exactly like they could see every outcome of every decision.

  4. #464
    Scarab Lord Darththeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away
    Posts
    4,856
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    But we need to know something about the probability distribution. What is the distribution of possible physical laws, and what is the distribution of the chance life arises on a planet conditioned on that distribution? We have no idea; we don't even know if the concept can make any sense.

    Your claim that OoL is likely elsewhere is not even wrong.
    We need an idea of what it could be. We have that. It is based on all the factors we know are required for life.

    You did not answer my question.
    It was pointing out your question is built on a flawed premise.

    Let's consider a similar, perhaps more concrete question. Suppose you claimed that invisible unicorns are common in American cities, and I asked "well, what would America look like if there were no invisible unicorns, and how would that be different from what we see?"

    If there is no difference, then our observations cannot rule the possibility there are no invisible unicorns in American cities.

    So I ask again, what specifically would be different in what we see if life were not out there because OoL is a very rare process (even in the presence of oxygen, carbon, etc. as were on the early Earth)?
    There was little to no diatomic oxygen on the early earth. All oxygen was in compounds and oxygen is not considered required for life (Just pointing out again, you are outdated on your information).

    And the actually answer to your question would be "We don't know."

    That's nice. That just shows that if life is rare, creation of amino acids probably isn't the reason.

    To show life isn't rare, you have to do more than show that some steps on the way to life are common. You need to show that EVERY step on the way to life is sufficiently common. And you cannot possibly do that, because we have no good understanding of what those steps are. We have not ruled out the possibility that some step in OoL may be extremely difficult.
    Yes, and unless that step is astronomically small it is functionally zero, life is likely. We been over this.
    My argument isn't life is COMMON. It is that life is STATITICALLY CERTAIN.

    No, YOU need evidence AGAINST it. That's because YOU are the one making the strong claim that life is common (or, that it exists out there at all).

    If I were making a similar strong claim that life is uncommon, then I would indeed need to provide that evidence. But I am making no such claim.
    I am not arguing life is common. I am arguing that what we know life is a statistical certainty. Those again are not synonyms.

    So, you admit 1 planet with life out there is a reasonable thing to propose, but you think 0 is not? Why the sharp cutoff
    Because in order for it to be zero. The odds for life not existing has to be a functional zero. That is just not likely to be the case.

    I am sick and tired of your inability to construct any argument that isn't ridiculous nonsense. You are lacking some basic mental capacity to reason correctly, it appears.

    This is not an ad hominem argument, it is a frankly appalled reaction to what you have been posting. You appear to lack even the ability to understand how bogus your attempts at logic are.
    No, that's is an insult. But you literally have spent this entire time strawmanning my argument whining about my logic because you do not have the decently to argue honestly. Just because something is certain does not then means it is common.

    Life may be exceedingly rare, but we have no reason to assume it is anything other than a statistical likelihood given what we know.
    Last edited by Darththeo; 2021-10-19 at 01:19 AM.
    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

  5. #465
    Quote Originally Posted by Darsithis View Post
    Sure it does. No matter how small the chance of life forming is, the fact that is has means that in the enormity of the universe it has to have happened before and it will again.
    This isn't how probability works. You can absolutely have something be so extraordinarily rare that it only happens once in the entire history of the universe.

    I'm not saying that I think we're alone, but you cannot use a sample size of one as evidence that there is more than just one.

    The real answer is we just have no idea, and until we find evidence of life on somewhere other than Earth we will not have a real answer to this.

  6. #466
    The answers aren't binary.
    Anyone claiming correct or incorrect is basing his/her opinion on belief or personal experience that s/he has answered for oneself.

  7. #467
    Scarab Lord Darththeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away
    Posts
    4,856
    Quote Originally Posted by Lemonpartyfan View Post
    He is most certainly deflecting and using circular logic. I can't comprehend psychics so I can't ever notice that they exist .... because I can't comprehend them is 100% circular logic and a fallacious argument.
    That also was not his argument. His argument wasn't you can't comprehend psychics is that even given psychics most people are going to assume more mundane answers, so more than just a simple proof will be required. He is definitely deflecting though.
    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

  8. #468
    Quote Originally Posted by Dch48 View Post
    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.
    Oh, okay. Like all those Bigfoot sightings just stopped when it was easy to take pictures, or ghosts etc... yeah, "can't be explained" = "I was confused."

  9. #469
    Quote Originally Posted by Darththeo View Post
    We need an idea of what it could be. We have that. It is based on all the factors we know are required for life.
    This doesn't make any sense. You seem to think that because some of the factors we understand to be needed for OoL are not serious obstacles to OoL, then all the other parts we don't understand are also not obstacles. Surely you can see that what you are claiming cannot possibly make any sense. We cannot jump to that conclusion.

    It was pointing out your question is built on a flawed premise.
    No, you failed to answer the question because the necessary answer "there would be no difference" is devastating to your incorrect claim that the evidence we have implies life exists elsewhere in the universe. I am trying to get you to clue in on the massive logic error you have been committing.

    And the actually answer to your question would be "We don't know."
    And we don't know if life exists elsewhere in the universe. We have no basis for asserting life is out there, or asserting it is not, or for saying it is likely to be out, or for saying it is unlikely to be out there. We don't have enough evidence to say.

    Yes, and unless that step is astronomically small it is functionally zero, life is likely. We been over this.
    My argument isn't life is COMMON. It is that life is STATITICALLY CERTAIN.
    Yes, and your argument is such obvious bullshit that it is incredibly amazing you haven't clued in on that yet. You are basically assuming no step is astronomically unlikely, based on NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.

    I am not arguing life is common. I am arguing that what we know life is a statistical certainty. Those again are not synonyms.
    Fine. The two claims are equally unsupported by the evidence. They may be true (the first implies the second) but neither is a valid inference from the existing evidence.

    Because in order for it to be zero. The odds for life not existing has to be a functional zero. That is just not likely to be the case.
    On what basis is it just not likely to be the case? What orifice to you pull that axiom out of? Personal incredulity?

    No, that's is an insult. But you literally have spent this entire time strawmanning my argument whining about my logic because you do not have the decently to argue honestly.
    The dishonesty (and intellectual vacuity) is entirely yours. You just don't recognize how horrendously flawed your nonsense is, despite my repeated attempts to clue you in.
    Last edited by Osmeric; 2021-10-19 at 01:37 AM.
    "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
    Get your COVID booster. It works so much better than horse paste.

  10. #470
    Scarab Lord Darththeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away
    Posts
    4,856
    Quote Originally Posted by Lemonpartyfan View Post
    Oh, okay. Like all those Bigfoot sightings just stopped when it was easy to take pictures, or ghosts etc... yeah, "can't be explained" = "I was confused."
    ... you think people aren't still seeing Bigfoot and ghosts? I am not saying they are real, but people still see them.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    -snip-
    If everything we know about life is more common than we originally thought, what logical reason do we have to assume that there would or is reasonable to be any astronomically rare factor to the Origin of Life to make it so unlikely that life doesn't exist anywhere else besides such a thing mathematically possible? And why in all our years of study has such a factor has not been found or even suggested what it could be?

    And no, not finding life is not evidence for it.
    Last edited by Darththeo; 2021-10-19 at 01:48 AM.
    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. #471
    Quote Originally Posted by Darththeo View Post
    That also was not his argument. His argument wasn't you can't comprehend psychics is that even given psychics most people are going to assume more mundane answers, so more than just a simple proof will be required. He is definitely deflecting though.
    Either way, thats still circular logic. No psychic has been caught, because humans will demand deny they exist and try to explain it away, because no psychics have been caught.

    Its not a real argument.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Darththeo View Post
    ... you think people aren't still seeing Bigfoot and ghosts? I am not saying they are real, but people still see them.
    Are people saying they are seeing ghosts and bigfoot? Maybe, I don't know or care. But are they taking pictures on their very easy to get cell phone or digital cameras who most humans in the US have? No, no they are not. It was all fun and games before it would have been easy to take a picture of bigfoot. But we still only have that one very blurry picture of him that was said to be fraudulent, and all those ghosts shows constantly getting busted for faking their spookiness.

  12. #472
    Quote Originally Posted by Darththeo View Post
    If everything we know about life is more common than we originally thought, what logical reason do we have to assume that there would or is reasonable to be any astronomically rare factor to the Origin of Life to make it unlikely besides such a thing mathematically possible? And why in all our years of study has such a factor has not been found or even suggested what it could be?

    And no, not finding life is not evidence for it.
    But I already explained why it would be plausible that there's some unlikely step: the enormous complexity gap between what prebiotic chemistry experiments have achieved and the smallest system capable of evolution. Indeed, it would be an enormously interesting discovery -- certainly worthy of a Nobel Prize -- to find a way past this complexity barrier that didn't involve extremely long odds. But this has never been demonstrated. At best, there are theory schemas that vaguely suggest how it might be possible (but that proves nothing.)

    Given the huge complexity barrier, I will turn this around and ask why is it reasonable to presume such a "cheat" exists, and is sufficiently strong so that the difficulty is reduced enough that life will arise more than once per universe? (Exactly what counts as a "universe" there should be specified; do the different branches of the wave function of a universe in the Many Worlds interpretation of QM count? Different causally disconnected bubbles in Eternal Inflation scenarios? Or just the observable universe, which is likely what we could ever see?)
    "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
    Get your COVID booster. It works so much better than horse paste.

  13. #473
    The Insane Ielenia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    16,710
    Quote Originally Posted by Darththeo View Post
    Did I say they intentionally fail? No.
    You said: "and just because none of been proven doesn't mean none of them have it" which implies those tested actually had supernatural powers, but failed the test. Which can only mean one thing: they have to have intentionally decided to fail the test. Because the only way to fail the test is to find out the fraudulent way one is faking the supernatural abilities they claim to have.

    There is no way that I can see they can "accidentally" fail that test.

    Someone can take a test to show they have powers, but the results are considered inconclusive or incorrect or they failed the test for other reasons.
    How? I cannot think of any way how one can fail the test other than intentionally. And then there is the guy who offered a million dollars (I think it was a million?) to anyone who could demonstrate supernatural powers. If memory serves is that, if the guy couldn't find any way in which the demonstration is fraudulent, they'd win the money. So far, no one got the prize.
    Quote Originally Posted by Varodoc View Post
    Torturing someone is not an evil thing to do if it is done for good reasons and as a last, drastic measure.
    Oof...

  14. #474
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    The evidence we have is consistent with life being rare.
    On what are you basing this? On the simple fact that, so far, the only place we have proven life exists is earth? Which, based on current data, is such an infinitesimally tiny observation sample of the universe as to be utterly statistically meaningless?

    What you are arguing is akin to saying that you "observed" one square picometer of the entirety of planet earth and then declaring that your observations are therefore broad enough to allow you to make statements about the constraints under with the entire rest of the planet must operate.

    You can't make the sweeping statement that life must be "rare" simply because you have not spotted it anywhere else but earth in the insanely fucking tiny amount of the universe you have so far observed.

    That's about as moronic as making the following observation:
    - I found ants in my yard.
    - I did not find ants in my neighbors yard.

    And attempting to argue that therefore, ants must be exceedingly rare on planet earth.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ielenia View Post
    The "scientific community" is not the "basic human rights defiler community". Also, who said anything about that person being the "only one"? Are you saying that only one person in the entire world would have supernatural powers?
    A: You seem to have a very weak grasp of history if you believe the "scientific community" wouldn't be willing to toss human rights out the window when it suited them. Questionable shit gets done in the name of science literally all the time. I guarantee you questionable shit would probably happen if a legit supernatural powered person poked their head up and made their presence known.
    B: I postulated one person because that's what we were talking about: A single person becoming known. This doesn't / wouldn't preclude the existence of others, but that wasn't what the topic at hand was. And if there were others? Well, just try to imagine, like actually imagine, what the world wide reaction to an actual mass emergence event would be like. I assure you it wouldn't be even vaguely close to happy fun times. Think X-Men comics, but crank the violence, racism, hatred and bigotry up to 11 and start stacking the bodies, cause it won't be pretty. Human nature literally doesn't work that way.

    Why didn't they, then? Why now suddenly there's this worry of "if they could get away with it"? What makes you think they'd have an easier time "getting away with it" murdering one man?
    Why didn't they? Because thankfully, there were people with functioning brains still in control of most of the important shit that happens in the country, who wouldn't let the Orange imbecile actually pull that trigger. But believe me, we probably came a hairs breadth from full on blood in the streets. As for having an easier time murdering one man? Laughable. The USA murders people with impunity on a regular basis. They just happen to be generally acceptable targets because they are "bad guys". You know. Brown, middle eastern, plotting the terrorism. Or maybe Mexican drug lords. Again: Never underestimate the lengths a government will go to to deal with elements they deem a possible threat to their safety and stability.

    Yes! Russia and China will tremble because the US have a guy in their pockets who can levitate small objects with his mind!
    You think Russia and China are going to take the USA's word for it that that is the only thing the guy can do? You think they are going to risk it? And even if we accept that that is the only thing he can do, there are probably loads of ways that being able to levitate small objects with your mind could make you incredibly valuable in the right situations.

    Except it's very relevant. I never said fame would 100% protect them. You're the one postulating that if a guy with supernatural powers came forward into the light, they would die, despite having literally zero evidence of that. And then when you tried to counter my claim that fame can protect them, you said "yeah famous people die too" and then I asked how many of those die in comparison to how many are still alive. Hell, let's make it even better: how many famous people are being assassinated in comparison to those still alive. Famous people get protection. That is a fact.
    No, it's still completely irrelevant. Being famous is not going to protect you if someone wants you dead and is willing to see it through. Period.

    I never said they would die. I said that simply by existing they would become a target. And they would. 100% guaranteed. Fame is not JUST adoring fans. Especially when you get into "literal supernatural abilities" territory. That kind of Fame gets you literal psycho crazies who would probably be entirely willing to hijack a plane and crash it into your hotel room on the off chance they take you with them.

    And your exact quote was:
    You really think rando Joe Shmoe with a gun would be able to kill a worldly famous, protected person? I imagine they wouldn't be able to even get near that person, much less have an opportunity to kill them.
    To which I reminded you that a random Joe Schmoe blew JFK's head off, and he was the president of the USA. It literally doesn't get much more famous than that. A "random Joe Schmoe" just murdered a UK Member of Parliament just a handful of days ago. Just literally walked into a public meeting the guy was at and stabbed him to death. Maybe he just wasn't famous enough to get the protection he needed or something?

    As for how many famous people die vs how many don't, that's a meaningless question. Even disregarding the generalities of the question, such as who qualifies as sufficiently famous to be included in the count (only world leaders? Famous rock stars? Does the guy from the ShamWow commercials count? What's the minimum number of Twitch followers you need to make the grade?), it doesn't matter. All that matters is that famous people die when someone is sufficiently determined to kill them.

    Famous people get protection. That's a Fact.

    Sure, but no amount of protection is going to keep you alive if someone is determined to see you dead. The only reason a lot of people (famous or not) are still alive is because nobody out there is crazy enough to make the calculated decision that ending their life is worth the almost 100% certainty of effectively ending your own.

    Fame won't protect you if someone is crazy enough to make the decision that killing you is worth the cost.
    Last edited by Surfd; 2021-10-19 at 07:07 AM.

  15. #475
    Scarab Lord Darththeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away
    Posts
    4,856
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    But I already explained why it would be plausible that there's some unlikely step: the enormous complexity gap between what prebiotic chemistry experiments have achieved and the smallest system capable of evolution. Indeed, it would be an enormously interesting discovery -- certainly worthy of a Nobel Prize -- to find a way past this complexity barrier that didn't involve extremely long odds. But this has never been demonstrated. At best, there are theory schemas that vaguely suggest how it might be possible (but that proves nothing.)

    Given the huge complexity barrier, I will turn this around and ask why is it reasonable to presume such a "cheat" exists, and is sufficiently strong so that the difficulty is reduced enough that life will arise more than once per universe? (Exactly what counts as a "universe" there should be specified; do the different branches of the wave function of a universe in the Many Worlds interpretation of QM count? Different causally disconnected bubbles in Eternal Inflation scenarios? Or just the observable universe, which is likely what we could ever see?)
    No, it is not "plausible" it is possible. You do not have enough information to claim that it is anything more than possible. You need more information to claim that life have a barrier like that is plausible besides math, which is all you have.

    Using that same logic, we cannot prove gravity actually exists ... it is possible that we have an observer bias we are unaware of and gravity is something else entirely. Should we discount gravity? We cannot prove any evolutionary line we propose, therefore discount evolution right?

    Your argument isn't actually logical. It sounds logical, but it fails. Because it is built on the fact our knowledge about how life starts is imperfect, but so is all our knowledge. Essentially, you are saying because for your personal liking we haven't fully ruled out this possibility therefore we cannot say anything for certain. That is not a logical statement.

    Even if we found life on Mars tomorrow. You would still be able to make your argument. Even if we found life in 3 systems in the Milky Way, you can still make it. The only way to disprove your argument is if life is so common it is everywhere in the universe and no one is claiming that. Your argument is for all intents and purposes unfalsifiable, therefore has no place in an argument on science.

    And the kicker is your own logic defeats your own argument anyway.

    Also, stop bring up evolution. Evolution is not a requirement for life. On Earth the line to where we draw life ranges from the first self replicating molecules to the first cell and people argue everything in between those. We don't know exactly where evolution stepped in the process only that it happened.
    Last edited by Darththeo; 2021-10-19 at 10:28 AM.
    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

  16. #476
    Quote Originally Posted by Hauzhi View Post
    Ofc you can start with statistics and math.
    There is even a famous equation for it.

    We got more than one planet in the solar systems, x number of solar systems with y number of planets and z number of galaxies.

    You can now start your math.

    - - - Updated - - -

    And guys.... There is no super natural.

    Because if something super is natural, in the end its just natural.
    Too many variables in that formula are unknown so for now it isn't actual math, it's more of a reference or a reminder that we need to know these things to answer this question. So no, you can't use any kind of math or bring in statistics unless you fill the gaps with your imagination and wishful thinking but then it stops being science.

  17. #477
    Quote Originally Posted by Surfd View Post
    On what are you basing this? On the simple fact that, so far, the only place we have proven life exists is earth? Which, based on current data, is such an infinitesimally tiny observation sample of the universe as to be utterly statistically meaningless?
    It's also because we don't understand how life got started. This ignorance is profound, and we cannot at all rule out the possibility that some step in that process is extremely difficult, so difficult that life originating twice in the observable universe is unlikely.

    (If we understood OoL was easy, say because we could make it happen in the laboratory, then we'd be entitled to conclude life exists elsewhere in the universe beyond our solar system. even if we hadn't proved that it exists at any other specific place out there. But that is not the situation we are in.)

    Notice (I say for the Nth time) that I am not claiming that life is rare, I'm claiming the current evidence does not support the inference that it is not rare. The meager scope of the evidence that you point out there strengthens this claim.

    What you are arguing is akin to saying that you "observed" one square picometer of the entirety of planet earth and then declaring that your observations are therefore broad enough to allow you to make statements about the constraints under with the entire rest of the planet must operate.
    You make the same mistake others have made in this thread. You are confusing "we can not conclude X" with "we can conclude not X". Your criticism would be valid if I were claiming life is rare. I'm not making that claim.

    You can't make the sweeping statement that life must be "rare"
    I didn't make that claim. Reading for comprehension is hard?
    "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
    Get your COVID booster. It works so much better than horse paste.

  18. #478
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    You make the same mistake others have made in this thread.
    And you keep spouting this.
    If everyone is making "this mistake" you claim then "you" are the problem.
    My earlier words that translated your gobbledygook; "we don't know enough to be certain of our uncertainty," followed the rule of "three Cs" for effective communication; clear, concise, and consistent. If you have to post paragraphs to get your opinion across...and so poorly that everyone make the "same mistakes" then don't bother.

  19. #479
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    And you keep spouting this.
    If everyone is making "this mistake" you claim then "you" are the problem.
    No, I'm not the problem. If I claim 2+2=4, and a bunch of people tell me, no, it's 5, that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

    Here it's that a bunch of people -- you too, apparently -- don't understand how to think about truth vs. belief, and confuse the two. This leads to repeated misinterpretation of what I quite plainly wrote.

    I'll repeat the point again, not that I expect you to understand it at this point: the claim that the evidence does not justify concluding that X is true, and the claim that the evidence justifies concluding that X is false, are different claims. The latter is a much stronger claim.
    "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
    Get your COVID booster. It works so much better than horse paste.

  20. #480
    Scarab Lord Darththeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away
    Posts
    4,856
    Quote Originally Posted by Osmeric View Post
    No, I'm not the problem. If I claim 2+2=4, and a bunch of people tell me, no, it's 5, that doesn't mean I'm wrong.

    Here it's that a bunch of people -- you too, apparently -- don't understand how to think about truth vs. belief, and confuse the two. This leads to repeated misinterpretation of what I quite plainly wrote.

    I'll repeat the point again, not that I expect you to understand it at this point: the claim that the evidence does not justify concluding that X is true, and the claim that the evidence justifies concluding that X is false, are different claims. The latter is a much stronger claim.
    Correct, but this isn't like 2+2=4. (Also, a terrible analogy as that is essentially a definition, rather than a conclusion that you are arguing. Or rather we cannot be certain of anything until we hit some arbitrary amount for you.)

    This is like saying "Based on we see, Person X is the likely criminal." And you go "But you haven't fully ruled out Person Y, therefore you don't know that."

    But it isn't even that. You are proposing that the possibility that some mystery obstacle that we do not know could exist therefore you cannot claim life is likely. You don't seem to comprehend that just saying that isn't a refutation, it is perfectly fine if you personally are not convinced of the validity, but declaring there is no reason to accept it is nonsensical.

    Taking your argument to the extreme discounts all human knowledge, for you there must be some cut off where evidence before perfect knowledge is obtain for us to be certain enough to make claims.
    Last edited by Darththeo; 2021-10-19 at 05:08 PM.
    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

Posting Permissions

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